JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/defendant/tenant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and eviction decree dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No.12/2008-Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. Dr. Surendra Mal Mertiya, was dismissed, affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.05.2008 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.3, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No.129/2007, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950'), was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. 2. Smt. Geeta Devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950'), was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with respect to suit shop premises, situated at 10th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. 2. The learned trial court granted eviction decree under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950, on the ground of denial of title of the landlord while giving the following finding on Issue No.5 as infra, whereas the ground of bonafide need of suit premises for landlord and the ground of non-user of suit shop were found to be not established: - ^^rudh la[;k % 1 vk;k oknh o izfroknhuh i{k ds e/; oknxzLr ifjlj ds lEcU/k esa Hkw&Lokeh o fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/k gS\ bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij FkkA bu rudh ds lEcU/k esa mlus vius la’kksf/kr okn i= ds in la[;k 2 es dFku fd;k gS fd mldh fefYd;r dh fooknxzLr nqdku esa izfroknhuh cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj gS rFkk in la[;k 5&, esa ;g O;Dr fd;k gS fd izfroknhuh }kjk oknh ls loZizFke fnukad 15-07-1974 dks nqdku fdjk;s ij yh xbZ FkhA og mls loZizFke la[;k 7 fnukad 23-10-1974 ds }kjk rhu ekg ds fdjk;s dh jlhn nh xbZ FkhA tcfd bl lEcU/k esa izfroknhuh }kjk vius la’kksf/kr tokc nkok ds in la[;k nks esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd mlus fooknxzLr nqdku lqesj ey esfM+fr;k ls 28&29 o”kZ iwoZ fdjk;s ij yh Fkh vkSj fdjk;k mEesn ey esM+fr;k vkSj ujsUnz esM+fr;k us crkSj edku ekfyd izkIr fd;k FkkA in la[;k 5&, esa bu rF;ks dks xyr crk;k gS fd mlus fnukad 15-7-1974 dks nqdku fdjk;s ij yh gks vkSj 3 ekg dk fdjk;k vnk dj jlhn la[;k 7 fnukad 23-10-1974 dks izkIr dh gksA bl rudh ds lEcU/k es mHk; i{kks dh lk{; dk voyksdu djs rks oknh ih MCy;w 1 MkDVj lqjsUnz esM+fr;k us okn i= ds rF;ksa dh gwcgw rkbZn djrs gq, vius eq[; ijh{kk esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku lfgr lEiw.kZ Iyk¡V la[;k 601 ch dks mlds firk Jh lqesjey esM+fr;k us cgSfl;r drkZ [kkunku ,oa eSustj la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj ds lu~ 1973 esa tfj;s jftLVMZ foØ; i= fnukad 23-06-1973 izn’kZ&1 ds [kjhn fd;k Fkk ml lEifŸk dks lu~ 1974 es caVokjk gks x;k Fkk rRi’pkr oknh ,oa mlds HkkbZ ujsUnz esM+fr;k ds caV es vk;h lEifŸk dk iqu% iathd`r fyf[kr caVokjk fd;k tks izn’kZ&2 gS ftl ij , ls ch oknh ds ,oa lh ls Mh mlds HkkbZ ujsUnz esM+fr;k ds gS vkSj mlds fgLls es fooknxzLr nqdku ,oa mlds fpirh if’pe fn’kk okyh nqdku vk;h FkhA izfroknhuh mlds LokfeRo dh fooknxzLr nqdku la[;k ,d esa fdjk;snkj gSA ftlus fnukad 15-7-1974 dks fooknxzLr ifjlj mlls fdjk;s ij fy;k FkkA blls iwoZ bl ifjlj esa Jherh xqekuh nsoh fdjk;snkj FkhA ftldh mlus fdj;k izkfIr dh jlhn la[;k 7 fnukad 23-10-1974 ds tfj;s fdjk;k vnk fd;k x;k tks jlhn izn’kZ&7 gSA mlds i’pkr fujUrj fdjk;k vnk fd;k x;k ftldh jlhnkr izn’kZ 8 yxk;r izn’kZ&45 gSA ftjg esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd Jherh xhrk nsoh dk fdjk;s ij nh Fkh ml le; mldk HkkbZ ekStwn FkkA fdjk;snkjh ekSf[kd r; gqbZ FkhA fooknxzLr nqdku dk fdjk;k izfroknhuh ds ifr vej flag ls mlds HkkbZ ujsUnz esM+fr;k us fy;k FkkA ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd mldh xhrk nsoh ls fdjk;snkjh ckcr ckrphr ugh dhA xokg ih MCY;w 2 mEesney esM+fr;k us Hkh oknh ih MCY;w 1 lqjsUnz esM+fr;k ds dFkuksa dh iw.kZr;k rkbZn dh gSA ftjg es O;Dr fd;k gS fd izfroknhuh dks izFke ckn nqdku fdjk;s ij nh FkhA bl lEcU/k esa izfroknuh dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; dk voyksdu djs rks izfroknhuh Mh MCY;w 1 xhrk nsoh us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa in la[;k nks esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku mlds ifjokj ds O;kikj gsrq 30 o”kZ iwoZ lqesj ey esM+fr;k ls fdjk;s ij yh FkhA og fdjk;k mEesney ,oa ujsUnz esM+fr;k us cRkkSj edku ekfyd izkIr fd;k FkkA in la[;k ikap esa izfroknhuh }kjk ;g Li”V :i ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd mlus dHkh oknh dks edku ekfyd ekuus ls bUdkj ugh fd;k gS nksuks gh ds e/; edku ekfyd vkSj fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/k gSA bl xokg us ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izFke fdjk;k dh jlhn mldks nh xbZ Fkh ftldh dkmUVj izfr jlhn izn’kZ&7 gSA ;g O;Dr fd;k gS fd mlds nqdku lqesjey esM+fr;k ls fdjk;s ij yh Fkh ogh mlds edku ekfyd gSA xokg Mh MCY;w 2 bUnz flag us xokg Mh MCY;w 1 ls dFkuks dh gwcgw rkbZn dh gSA ftjg esa O;Dr djrk gS fd nqdku fdjk;s ij yh rc og 8&10 lky dk Fkk mlus ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku ds fdjk;s dh jlhn mlds ns[kh gqbZ gS tks fjdkMZ izn’kZZ&6 ls igys&45 gSA bl izdkj mHk; i{kksa dh mDr leLr lk{; dk lkjiw.kZ :i ls foospu djs rks esjs fouez er esa tgka oknh us fooknxzLr nqdku mlds }kjk izfroknh dks fdjk;s ij fn;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gS ogh izfroknh us fooknxzLr nqdku lqesjey esM+fr;k ls fdjk;s ij fy;k tkuk rFkk mldk fdjk;k ujsUnz ,oa mEesney esM+fr;k }kjk crkSj edku ekfyd ysuk O;Dr fd;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa oknh }kjk fooknxzLr nqdku ds LokfeRo ds lEcU/k esa dFku fd;s x;s gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku lfgr lEiw.kZ IyksV la[;k 601 ch mlds firk }kjk tjh;s izn’kZ&1 fodz; i= ds [kjhn fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ckn esa mDRk lEifŸk dk caVokjk gqvk o mlds ,oa mlds HkkbZ ujsUnz esM+fr;k ds e/; caVokjk izn’kZ&2 gS ftlesa fooknxzLr nqdku mlds fgLls esa vk;hA bl izdkj oknh ds mDr dFkuksa dh rkbZn mlds }kjk izLrqr nLrkostkr izn’kZ&1 ,oa izn’kZ&2 ls Hkh gksrh gS A bl lEcU/k esa izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us nkSjkus cgl rdZ izLrqr fd;k gS fd oknh }kjk tks caVokjk izn’kZ&2 is’k fd; x;k gS og dsoy nks HkkbZ;ksa ds chp gS tcfd oLrqr% caVokjk lEifŸk ds leLr fgLlsnkjku ds chp gksuk pkfg,A ijUrq bl lEca/k esa esjs fouez er esa mDr cVaokjk foys[k es ;g Li”V :i ls vafdr gS fd mDr cVaokjk dh fooknxzLr lEifr i{kdkjku ds la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifŸk Fkh ftldk caVokjk fnukad 25-3-1974 dks gks x;k FkkA mDr caVokjk esa mDr nksuks HkkbZ;ksa ds fgLls esa tks lEifŸk vk;h mldks mDr izn’kZ&2 ds }kjk vkxs caVokjk dj jgs gSA ,sls es esjs fouez er es tgka rd l;qDr ifjokj dh lEifŸk dk caVokjk gksdj dqN lEifŸk nks HkkbZ;ksa ds fgLls es vkrh gS o mlesa iqu% vius caVokjs ds fgLls dks Li”V djrs gS rks mlesa fdlh izdkj dk vojks/k izdV ugh gksrk gS bl lEcU/k es 2003 ,-vkb-vkj ,lLkhMCy;w 69 Bonafide requirement of suit shop by landlord plea that gift of suit shop exclusively to landlord by his father is a manipulation pointing out malafide-Held-not tenable as in an eviction suit the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord can not be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has executed and registered in accordance with law the transaction is otherwise legal. bl izdkj U;kf;d n`”Vkar esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds n`f”Vxr gLrxr izdj.k esa izfroknhuh ds vf/koDrk }kjk caVokjk izn’kZ&2 ds lEca/k esa mBk;s x;s rdksZ dks iks”k.kh; ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl izdkj oknh viuh ekSf[kd lk{; ,oa nLrkosth lk{; izn’kZ&1 ,Oka izn’kZ&2 ds vk/kkj ij izFke n`”V;k fooknxzLr ifjlj ds lECkU/k esa vius LoRo dks n’kkZus esa lQy jgk gSA Rkudh la[;k&7 & vk;k oknh okn i= dh dye la[;k 5&, ds vuqlkj fooknxzLr ifjlj dk okLrfod dCtk /kkjk 13¼1½¼,Q½ jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ;g rudh la[;k ,d ls lEcfU/kr gksus ls bldk fuLrkj.k lqfo/kk dh n`f”V ls igys fd;k tk jgk gSA ;g rudh oknh }kjk U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ls la’kksf/kr nkok esa tksM+s x, okn i= ds in la[;k 5, ds vk/kkj ij fojfpr dh xbZ gSA ftlesa oknh us ;g vk/kkj fy;k gS fd izfroknh }kjk ewy tokc nkok esa oknh ds VkbZVy ¼LoRo½ dks pqukSrh nh gS rFkk lkFk gh edku ekfyd fdjk;snkj ds lECkU/k ls Hkh bUdkj fd;k gS ftls oknh us ekQ ugh fd;k gS Qyr% og /kkjk 13 ¼1½¼,Q½ jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr dCtk izkIr djus dk gdnkj gSA /kkjk 13¼1½¼,Q½ esa ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn %& 1& fdjk;snkj us fdjk;snkj ds :Ik esa viuh gSfl;r dks udkj fn;k gks ;k 2& Hkw&Lokeh ds LoRo vf/kdkjh ¼VkbZVy½ ls bUdkj dj fn;k gks rFkk 3& Hkw Lokeh us vius vf/kdkjksa dks vf/kR;ftr ugha fd;k gS ;k fdjk;snkj ds vkpj.k dks ekQ ugha fd;k gksA rks bl vk/kkj ij og csn[kyh dh fMdzh izkIr djus dk gdnkj gksxkA bu rudh ds lEcU/k esa mHk; i{kksa dh lk{; dk foospu fd;s tkus ls iwoZ nksuks gh i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k }kjk nkSjkus cgl izLrqr fd;s U;kf;d n`”VkUr dk llEeku voyksdu fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA oknh ds vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`”Vkar f’koukjk;.k fo:) tkudh izlkn 1994 ¼1½ vkj-,y-vkj- ist& 319 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn LoRo ls bUdkjh ds lEca/k esa u rks okn i= esa vfHkopu gks vkSj u gh rudh fojfpr dh xbZ gks rc Hkh U;k;ky; mDr vk/kkj ij fMdzh izkIr dj ldrk gSA ;g Hkh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd fooknxzLr ifjlj ds fdlh Hkkx ds lEca/k esa LoRo ¼VkbZVy½ ls bUdkj Hkh csn[kyh ds vk/kkj gks ldrs gSA LoRo ¼VkbZVy½ ls bUdkj nkok nk;jh ls iwoZ gksuk vko’;d ugha gSA U;kf;d n`”Vkar gjn;ky ds dk;e eqdke cuke jfoUnz vxzoky 2004 ¼1½ MCY;w-,y-lh- ist&582 esa fdjk;snkj }kjk fdlh vU; O;fDRk ds LoRo ¼VkbZVy½ gksuk dfFkr fd;k x;k rFkk ;g Hkh vfHkdFku fd;s fd oknh mldk edku ekfyd ugh gSA Qyr% fdjk;snkj ds fo:) fu”dklu dh fMdzh dks oS/k ekuk x;kA ogha izfroknhuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`”VkUr ,-vkbZ-vkj- ¼,l lh½ ist 1264 Jherh ‘khyk o vU; cuke jkekuUnjk; jkeizdk’k esa fdjk;snkj us viuh fdjk;snkjh gSfl;r ls bUdkj ugha fd;k o oknh dks edku ekfyd Hkh ekuk dsoy mlus vius laj{k.k ds fy, l)koukiwoZd edku ekfyd dks viuk LoRo lkfcr djus dks dgkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd bls LoROk ¼VkbZVy½ ls bUdkj ugha ekuk tk ldrkA xxx bl lEca/k esa esjs fouez er esa oknh }kjk vius ewy nkok esa izfroknh dks viuk fdjk;snkj crk;k rFkk ftlls bUdkj djrs gq, izfroknhuh us vius ewy nkok ds tokc nkok esa in la[;k nks esa Li”V vfHkopu fd;k gS fd mlus fooknxzLr nqdku oknh ds firk lqesjey esM+fr;k ls fdjk;s ij yh FkhA ;agk rd fd mlus ;g Hkh O;Dr fd;k gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku dk fdjk;k mEesney ,oa ujsUnz esM+fr;k us cRkkSj edku ekfyd izkIr fd;kA bl izdkj mDr vfHkopuksa ls ;g Li”V bafxr djrs gS fd izfroknhuh us oknh lqjsUnz esM+fr;k ls nqdku fdjk;s ij ugh yh gS vkSj u gh mldks cRkkSj edku ekfyd fdjk;k vnk fd;k bl izdkj mDr vfHkopuks es Li”V :i ls izfroknhuh us oknh dks edku ekfyd gksus ls Li”V :i ls bUdkj fd;k gSA ;gka rd fd tc oknh }kj la’kksf/kr nkok ds in la[;k 5, tksM+k x;k ftlesa Hkh mlus Li”V :i ls vafdr fd;k gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku igys oknh ds la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh lEifŸk Fkh tks oknh vdsys ds caV esa caVokjk es vk;h gS fd oknh us ;g Hkh Li”V :i ls vafdr fd;k gS fd oknh us mDr nqdku fnukad 15-07-1974 dks izfroknhuh dks fdjk;s ij nh Fkh rFkk ftldh jlhn Hkh mlus nhA mDr Li”V vfHkopuksa ds ckotwn Hkh izfroknhuh us la’kksf/kr tokc nkok ds in la[;k 5&, esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd oknh Lo;a fl) djds fd fooknxzLr nqdku mlds vdsys ds caV es vk;h gSA mlus fnukad 15-07-1974 dks oknh ls nqdku fdjk;s ij ysus ds rF; dks Hkh xyr crk;k rFkk fooknxzLr nqdku dk fdjk;k tfj, jlhn la[;k 7 ds vnk djus ls Hkh bUdkj fd;k gS tcfd rudh la[;k ,d ds foospu ds dze esa oknh ;g lkfcr djus es lQy jgk gS fd mlus fnukad 15-07-1974 dks nqdku fdjk;s ij nh FkhA rRi’pkr fooknxzLr nqdku dk fdjk;k oknh }kjk ,oa oknh dh vksj ls mlds HkkbZ;ks }kjk tfj;s jlhn la[;k izn’kZ 7 ls izn’kZ&45 fy;k tkrk jgk gSA izfroknh us vius vfHkopuksa esa mEesyey ,oa ujsUnz esM+fr;k }kjk crkSj edku ekfyd fdjk;k ysuk vius tokc nkok esa vfdar fd;k gS tcfd mDr mEesney esM+fr;k us oknh ds xokg ih MCY;w 2 ds :Ik esa U;k;ky; esa Li”V :i ls l’kiFk dFku fd;s gS fd mlus fdjk;k oknh Mk¡- lqjsUnz esM+fr;k dh vksj ls fy;k Fkk rFkk fooknxzLr nqdku dk ekfyd oknh gh gS vkSj mDr nqdku esa oknh ds firk ;k HkkbZ;ks dks dksbZ gd ,oa vf/kdkj ugh gSA mDr xokgku ds Li”V dFkuksa ds ckotwn Hkh izfroknhuh }kjk viuh lk{; esa Hkh eq[; ijh{k.k esa tokc nkok ds rF;ksa dks gwcgw nksgjkrs gq, mEesney ,oa ujsUnz esM+fr;k }kjk crkSj edku ekfyd fdjk;k izkIr djuk vafdr fd;k gS ;gka rd fd izfroknhuh Mh MCY;w 1 Lo;a Jherh xhrk nsoh us vius izfr ijh{kk esa ;gka rd dFku fd;s gS fd mlus nqdku lqesjey ls fdjk;s ij yh Fkh vkSj ogh bl nqdku ds ekfyd gS vkSj dksbZ ekfyd ugh gSA bl izdkj izfroknhuh ds mDr dFku Hkh Li”V :i ls oknh ds LoRo¼VkbZVy½ ls bUdkj djus dh Js.kh es vkrk gSA nkSjkus cgl izfroknhuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk eq[; rdZ ;g jgk gS fd izfroknhuh us oknh ds LoRo dk pqukSrh ugh nh gS cfYd mlus dsoy vius LoRo dks lkfcr djus gsrq dgk gS ftls LoRo ls bUdkj ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl lEcU/k es izfroknhuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`”VkUr ,-vkb-vkj- 2002 ¼,l-lh-½ ist 1264 Jherh ‘khyk cuke izeksn jk; es Hkh ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd tagk fdjk;snkj Loa; ds laj{k.k ds fy, l)HkkoukiwoZd edku ekfyd dks LoRo lkfcr djus dk dgrk gS rks mls LoRo ls bUdkj ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ijUrq esjs foUkez er es mDr U;kf;d n`”VkUr rF;ksa dh fHkUurk ds dkj.k bl izdj.k esa pLik ugha gksrs gSA pawfd gLrxr izdj.k esa dgh Hkh ,sls rF; izdV ugh gq, gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku ds lEcU/k es oknh ,oa mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds e/; fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fookn gks u gh izfroknhuks }kjk ;g vfHkopu fd;s x;s gS fd oknh ds vykok fdlh vU; O;fDr us bl fooknxzLr nqdku LkEifŸk dk ekfyd gksuk dgk gksA ;gka rd fd Loa; oknh ds xokg ihMCY;w 2 mEesney esM+fr;k us tks oknh ds HkkbZ gS u Li”V :i ls ;g dFku fd;k gS fd fooknxzLr nqdku dk ekfyd oknh gh gSA vkSj mDr nqdku esa oknh ds HkkbZ;ksa ;k firk dk dksbZ ysuk nsuk ;k gd vf/kdkj ugha gS lkFk gh oknh us tfj;s nLrkostkr izn’kZ 2 fyf[kr caVokjk ds fooknxzLr nqdku ds lEca/k esa Loa; dk LokfeRo dks izFke n`”V;k lkfcRk fd;k gSA bl izdkj tgak oknh ds fooknxzLr nqdku ds lEcU/k esa LokfeRo ;k gd ds LkEcU/k esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fookn Fkk gh ughA mlds ckotwn izfroknh }kjk mls fooknxzLr nqdku ds Lokeh ekuus ls ,oa edku ekfyd ekuus ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS ftls fdlh izdkj ls l)kfod ugh ekuk tk ldrk gS RkFkk ;g rF; izfroknh }kjk oknh ds LoRo ls bUdkjh dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA bl izdkj gLrxr izdj.k esa izfroknhuh }kjk tokc nkok esa fd;s x;s vfHkopuksa ,oa izLrqr dh xbZ lk{; ls ;g Li”V izdV gksrk gS fd izfroknhuh us fooknxzLr nqdku lqesj ey esM+fr;k ls fdjk;s ij ysuk ,oa fdjk;k crkSj edku ekfyd mEesney ,oa ujsUnz esM+fr;k dks vnk djus dk dFku dj Li”V :i ls oknh dks edku ekfyd ekuus ls bUdkj fd;k gSA bruk gh ugh izfroknhuh Mh MCY;w 1 Jherh xhrk nsoh us viuh ftjg esa Hkh Li”V :i ls Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldh nqdku ekfyd lqesjey gS mlds vykok dksbZ ekfyd ugh gS mDr dFku Hkh oknh ds LoRo dh bUdkjh dh Js.kh es vkrs gSA izfroknhuh ds d`R; dks oknh }kjk ekQ fd;k x;k gks ,slh izfr j{kk izfroknhuh dh ugha gSA oknh us vius okn i= ,oa lk{; esa Li”V vafdr fd;k gS fd mlus izfroknhuh ds mDr vkpj.k dks ekQ ugh fd;k gSA vr% fu”d”kZr oknh ;g lkfcr djus es lQy jgk gS fd izfroknh us mlds LoRo ls bUdkj fd;k gS ftl oknh us ekQ ugh fd;k gS Qyr% og /kkjk 13¼1½¼,Q½ jktLFkku ifjlj fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e ds rg dCtk izkIr djus dk gdnkj izrhr gksrk gSA vr% ;g rudh mi;qZDr foospukuqlkj oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhuh ds fo:) r; dh tkrh gSA xxx vuqrks”k %& mijksDr leLr rudh;kr ds foospukuqlkj oknh fooknxzLr ifjlj ds lEca/k esa viuh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa l)kfod vko’;drk lkfcr djus es vlQy jgk gS vr% ;g Hkh lkfcr djus es vlQy jgk gS fd izfroknhuh i{k }kjk nkok nk;jh ls Bhd N% ekg yxkrkj fooknxzLr ifjlj dk mi;ksx ugh fd;k gSA vr% mDr vk/kkjks ij oknh dksbZ vuqrks”k izkIr djus dk gdnkj ugh gSA ijUrq oknh rudh la[;k ,d o lkr dks lkfcr djus es lQy jgk gS rFkk ;g lkfcr gqvk gS fd izfroknhuh }kjk oknh ds LoRo ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS ftlds QyLo:i oknh /kkjk 13 ¼1½¼,Q½ ds rgr fooknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk izfroknhuh ls izkIr djus dk gdnkj gSA Qyr% csn[kyh ds lEcU/k esa oknh dk ;g okn fMdzh fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k QyLo:i oknh dk ;g nkok [kkyh djkus fooknxzLr ifjlj fxdzh fd;k tk dj izfroknhuh dks vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd og okn i= ds in la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ,oa gnwn ds fooknxzLr ifjlj dk [kkyh dCtk bl fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls nks ekg ds Hkhrj oknh dks lqiqnZ djs rFkk lkFk gh oknh bl fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls rk feyus dCtk fooknxzLRk ifjlj 200@& :i;s izfr ekg ds :i esa mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx ckcr gtkZuk ds :i es izkIr djus dk gdnkj gksxk] [kPkkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA rnuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ ewfrZc fd;k tkosA Sd/- ¼nsosUnz flag HkkVh½ vfr-flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼d-[k-½ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVsªV izFk oxZ la[;k rhu] tks/kiqj ¼jkt-½^^ 3. The first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013 giving the following findings while affirming the judgment and eviction decree of the learned trial court on the same grounds of denial of denial of title but other issues about bonafide need, non-user of shop still decided in favour of defendant/tenant: - ^^24- izfroknh lk{kh&1 xhrknsoh us viuh lk{; esa eq[; ijh{kk esa bl fCkUnq ijtokc nkok ds iSjk la[;k 5&, izLrqr fd;k gS ogh vfHkdFku fd;k gS ftlesa ;g crk;k gS fd mlus oknh dks edku ekfyd ekuus ls badkj ugh fd;k vkSj uk gh djsxk nksuksa ds e/; HkwLokeh o fdjk;snkj ds lac/k gS ;fn oknh ds ikl fooknxzLr nqdku ds Lokeh gksus VkbZVy LFkkfir gksus dk dksbZ nLrkost fof/k vuqlkj gS tks ml ij izfroknh ds dksbZ ,srjkt ugh gS rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us ;g crk;k gS fd mlds }kjk nqdku lqesjey ls fdjk;s ij yh xbZ Fkh rFkk lqesjey gh mldk nqdku ekfyd gS blds vykok mldk dksbZ edku ekfyd ugha gSA ftjg esa bl xokg us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd o”kZ 1974 dks loZizFke nqdku fdjk;s ij yh Fkh ftldh jlhn izn’kZ&7 gS ftl ij mlds ifr ds gLrk{k; gS rFkk eq[; ijh{kk esa 32 o”kZ iwoZ fdjk;s ij fy;k tkuk crk;k gS ;gak U;k;ky; dk fouez er ;g gS fd izfroknh lk{kh& 1 dh eq[; ijh{kk is’k dh xbZ gS og fnuakd 5-9-06 dks is’k dh xbZ gS rFkk bl xokg ds bl dFku ls lu~ 1974 es iz’uxr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fy;k tkuk vk;k gS rFkk bl lac/k esa izfroknh lk{kh&2 bUnzflag us rks viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd iz’uxr ifjlj dk edku ekfyd dkSu gS mls irk ugha gS rks ;gka mHk; i{k dh lk{; dk foospu djs rks tc izfroknh us viuh lk{; esa ;g lkQrkSj ij Lohdkj fd;k gS fd iz’uxr ifjlj lu~ 1974 esa fdjk;s ij fy;k x;k gks rFkk izn’kZ&7 ls fdjk;s ij fy;k x;k Fkk ftldh fdjk;s dh jlhn gksuk crk;k gS rks iz’uxr ifjlj o”kZ 1974 fdjk;s ij gks tks oknh lqjsUnzey }kjk tkjh dh xbZ jlhn gS ftl ij dksbZ fookn Hkh ugh gS fQj Hkh izfroknh us viuh lk{; esa ;g crk;k gS fd lqesjey ls iz’uxr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fy;k Fkk rFkk lqesjey gh mldk edku ekfyd gS rFkk tokc nkok es mEesney o ujsUnz dks Hkh ekfyd gksuk crk;k gS ysfdr oknh dks ekfyd ds lac/k es dgk fd lkfcr djs tcfd tks nLrkost izn’kZ&1 o”kZ 1973 dk gS rFkk izn’kZ 2 o 3 o”kZ 1974 ds gS rks rc iz’uxr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k Fkk ml le; oknh ds iz’uxr ifjlj caV esa vk;k Fkk rFkk nLrkost izn’kZ&7 ls vkSj oknh dh o izfroknh dh lk{; ls Hkh iz’uxr ifjlj }kjk lqesjey ls fdjk;s ij ysuk vkSj lqesjey dks gh edku ekfyd gksuk viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS rks fQj oknh ds LoRo ls lkQ rkSj ls o Li”V :i ls HkwLokeh gksus ls badkj fd;s tkus dh rkjhQ esa izfroknh dh lk{; ls gh ;g fLFkfr lkQ gksrh gS rFkk bl lac/k esa vihykFkhZ izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us tks U;kf;d fofu’p; izLrqr fd, gS mudk lLkEeku iwoZd ifj’khyu djus ls ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 1264 ‘khrk ,.M vnLkZ ojlSl QeZ izgykn jk; izse izdk’k ftles ;g O;oLFkk nh gS fd ;fn rhljs O;fDr ls fdjk;s ij fy;k tkuk crk;k tkrk gS vkSj rhljk O;fDr dk ekfyd gksuk crk;k tkrk gS rks og LoRo badkjh dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSA gLrxr ekeys esa ;gh fLFkfr gS fd izfroknhuh us iz’uxr ifjlj tc oknh ls fdjk;s ij tfj, jlhn izn’kZ&7 ls fy;k gS vkSj oknh ds LoRo dks HkwLokeh dh fLFkfr ls badkj dj jgh gS rFkk rhljk O;fDr lqesjey dks iz’uxr ifjlj dk ekfyd gksuk crk jgh gS rks ;g LoRo dh badkjh dk ekeyk gSA fof/k dk ;g lqLi”V fl)kUr gS fd lEifŸk dh izk% fLFkfr firk iq= dh viuh&viuh O;fDrfu”B gksrh gS blfy;s egt lqesjey }kjk iz’uxr ifjlj dk [kjhnus ls og Hkw&Lokeh gks tkrk gks ,slh fof/kd fLFkfr ugh gS cfYd izfroknh us izFke n`”V;k gh ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha nh gS fd lqesjey }kjk iz’uxr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k gks ,slh lwjr esa vihykFkhZ izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us tks U;kf;d fofu’pr izLrqr fd;s x;s gS muds ifjis{; esa mudk llEeku&iwoZd ifj’khyu djus ls Hkh ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; o ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tks Hkw&Lokeh ds LoRo dh badkjh ds lac/k esa tks fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS mudh jks’kuh esa Hkh ;fn Hkw&Lokeh ds LoRo dks fdlh rhljs O;fDr dk LOkRo crkdj fdjk;snkj ekeyk cukrk gS rks ogka LoRo dh badkjh dk Li”V :i ls ekeyk gksrk gS rFkk ;g dksbZ izfroknh us tks vius tokc nkos es o viuh lk{; esa tks vfHkokd fy;s gS og dksbZ l)kfod izfrj{kk ugh gSA tc ;gka blls Hkh vf/kd ,d fLFkfr ,d ;g Hkh gS fd tc izfroknh dh lk{; ls iwoZ gh fdjk;s dh jlhnkr izn’kZ&7 ls izn’kZ 45 izLrqr dh tk pqdh Fkh ftles U;k;ky; dh jlhn es lqjsUnzey dk fy[kk gqvk vafdr gS RkFkk tks caV es vkus dk nLrkost o”kZ 1974 dk izn’kZ&2 Hkh izfroknh dh lk{; ls iwoZ esa gh is’k fd;k tk pqdk Fkk fQj Hkh izfroknh us viuh lk{; esa lqesjey dks iz’uxr lEifŸk dk ekfyd gksuk crk;k blds vykok fdlh vU; dks ekfyd gksuk ugh crk;k gS rks ;g oknh ds HkwLokeh ds LoRo ls lkQ rkSj ls badkjh dk ekeyk gks tkrk gS blfy;s vihykFkhZ izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/kOkDrk us tks U;kf;d fofu’p; izLrqr fd;s gS og gLrxr ekeys ds rF;ks ds fHkUurk ds dkj.k vkd`”V ugh gksrs gS rFkk vihykFkhZ izfroknh ds fo)ku vf/koDrk us ;g nyhy izLrqr dh fd jktLFkku ifjlj ¼fdjk;k rFkk csn[kyh fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 esa HkwLokeh o fdjk;snkj dks ifjHkkf”kr fd;k gqvk gS rFkk ;gka bla lac/k es U;k;ky; dk fouez er gS fd HkwLokeh tks Hkh fdjk;k izkIr djrk gS og izkIrdrkZ gks tkrk gS ysfdu HkwLokeh ds LoRo dk ekfydkuk gd ls tqM+k gqvk gksrk gS og fcYdqy fHkUu ekeyk gksrk gS rFkk tks HkwLokeh vkSj fdjk;snkj ds lac/k ds ckjs esa tks fook|d la[;k 1 es fuf.kZr fd;k x;k gS og dksbZ fook|d la[;k 7 ls fojks/kkHkklh ugh gks ldrk gS D;ksafd tc izfroknh us vius tokc nkok esa ;g vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd og HkwLokeh lkfcr djs rks fQj fook|d la[;k 1 dh fojpuk djrk ykth gks x;k Fkk ftles HkwLokeh o fdjk;snkj dk oknh o izfroknh dk lac/k gksuk ekuk gS rFkk bl lac/k es fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu”d”kZ fn;k x;k gS mlesa fdlh izdkj dh gLr{ksi dh xqatkbZ’k ugh gS og fof/kd fl)kUrks ds ifjis{; esa lgh fu”d”kZ fn;k x;k gS vr% fook|d la[;k 7 ds lac/k es tks fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fu”d”kZ fn;k x;k gS og iq”V fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA xxx 27- eSus mHk; i{k dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa U;kf;d fofu’p;ksa dk lLkEeku iwoZ ifj’khyu fd;kA bl laca/k es ;fn oknh ds vfHkopuksa dk ifj’khyu fd;k tk, rks oknh us viuh lk{; esa crk;k fd mldk vkenuh c<+kus ds fy;a iz’uxr ifjlj [kkyh gksus ij fDyfud [kksyus dh ;kstuk gS bl laca/k esa fufoZokn fLFkfr gS fd oknh jktdh; lsok esa fpfdRld ds in ij dk;Zjr gS rFkk tc jktdh; lsok esa fpfdRld ds in ij dk;Zjr gS rks og vU;Fkk :i ls izkbZosV :i ls dksbZ /kU/kk ;k dkuwuh :i ls dj ldrk gks ,slh fLFkfr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&oknh dh vksj ls Li”V ugh dh xbZ gS rFkk tc jktdh; lsok esa ,d fuf’pe lsok drZO; ds le; gksrk gS RkFkk fpfdRld drZO; rks ,slk gS fd mldk le; cnyrk jgrk gS rFkk oknh flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 18 ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj dh iwoZ vquefr vko’;d gS rFkk izR;FkhZ oknh }kjk izsfDVl djus ds fy;s ;k fDyfud [kksyus ds fy;s dksbZ vuqefr yh gks ;k lsokfuo`Ÿkh ysus tk jgk gks ,slk dksbZ izR;FkhZ oknh dk vfHkHkkod ugh gS rFkk egt vk;kstu izFke rks iz’uxr ifjlj dh vko’;drk dh bPNk ek= gS tc jktdh; lsok es dk;Zjr gS rks fQj oknh dh l)kfod vko’;drk drbZ ugh ekuh tk ldrh gS blfy;s iz’uxr ifjlj dh l)kfod vko’;drk gh ugh gS rks fQj rqyukRed dfBukbZ gks vkaf’kd fu”dklu dk iz’u csekus gks tkrk gS blfy;s mHk; i{k dh vksj ls bu fook|d ds lac/k es tks U;kf;d fofu’p; izLrqr fd;s gS mudh jks’kuh esa oknh dh iz’uxr ifjlj dh ;FkkFkZrk% es ;qfDr;qDr ,oa l)kfod vko’;drk gks ;g drbZ oknh jktdh; lsok es dk;Zjr gksus ls ugh ekuk tk ldrk D;ksfd oknh Loa; viuk futh fDyfud ds fy;s vko’;drk gksuk crk;k gS tcfd oknh tks Lo;a jktdh; lsok es dk;Zjr gS blfy;s oknh dh ;g l)kfod vko’;drk ugh gks ldrh gSA vr% fook|d la[;k 2 ls 4 ds lac/k es tks fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fu”d”kZ fn;k x;k gS ftles fdlh izdkj dh gLr{ksi dh vko;drk ugh gS rFkk izR;FkhZ oknh ds tks dzk¡l vkCtsD’ku gS og vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 28- vr% vihykFkhZ&izfroknh dh vihy fook|d la[;k 7 ds laca/k esa vLohdkj dh tkdj [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk izR;FkhZ&oknh ds dzk¡l vkCtsD’ku fook|d la[;k 2 ls 5 ds lac/k es vLohdkj dh tkdj [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k 29- vr% vihykFkhZ&izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy fook|d la[;k 7 ds laca/k es vLohdkj dh tkdj [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la[;k 7 ds lac/k es tks fu.kZ; o fMdzh ckcr csn[kyh iz’uxr ifjlj fnaukd 21-5-08 dks ikfjr dh xbZ gS mls iq”V fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izR;FkhZ oknh dk dzk¡l vkCtsD’ku fook|d la[;k 2 ls 5 ds lac/k es vLohdkj dh tkdj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA ekeys es rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa es i{kdkjku [kpkZ viuk&viuk ogu djsaxs rnukuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ rS;kj fd;k tkosA fu.kZ; o fMdzh dh izfr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks i=koyh ds lkFk izsf”kr gksA Sd/- ¼fxjh’k dqekj ‘kekZ½ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k la[;k&,d tks/kiqj egkuxj^^ 4. The appellant/defendant has also now filed an application before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, 1908 on 07.10.2013 along-with which, the appellant/defendant has produced the copy of gift-deed dated 15.07.2004 (which was registered on 22.09.2004) giving away the property in question viz. two shops including the suit shop in question situated at 601-B, th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, by the landlord (original plaintiff) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, sister-in-law (“Bhabhi”) of the plaintiff/landlord and a copy of the quit notice dated 11.02.2010 terminating the tenancy by Advocate Mr. Shivnarayan Pungaliya, on behalf of the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertia. 5. Mr. B.M. Bhojak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant/tenant, argued that since the suit property was gifted to Smt. Anita Mertiya, in 2004 itself therefore, the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff/respondent/landlord in the suit property or shop got extinguished and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below though the eviction decree was concurrently given on the ground of denial of title or relationship of landlord-tenant under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950 and not on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord or non-user of suit shop as claimed by the landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent has played a fraud upon the tenant and the courts below and obtained the eviction decree while concealing this material fact. He, however, conceded that the rent for suit property/shop was continued to be paid to the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya only. He argued that the eviction decree granted by the courts below deserves to be reversed only on this ground and this gives rise to a substantial question of law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, also relied upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1882'), the general law as against the provisions of the special law viz. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term “Landlord” in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Rent Control Act of 1950, which defines the term “Landlord” in much broader terms and urged that since the attornment in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, under the gift-deed now produced was automatic, therefore, the lessor (landlord) Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, could not initiate and continue with the eviction proceedings after gifting the suit property and, therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the eviction decree, though concurrently granted by the courts below, deserves to be reversed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant at length, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant for consideration by this Court since admittedly the landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, continued to receive the rent from the tenant and, therefore, his right to seek eviction as “landlord” as defined under the Rent Control Act, 1950 continued irrespective of his transfer of suit property by way of gift, and the present second appeal of tenant deserves dismissal. The reasons are as follows. 8. Though O. 41 R. 27 application does not deserve acceptance at this stage, as the gift is said to be of the year 2004 by a registered gift-deed and this document is now sought to be produced for the first time before this Court in the year 2013, after 11 years, without explaining any reason for the huge delay and also the question of title being irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950, yet the contention of learned counsel, Mr. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed. 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -“109. B.M. Bhojak, was hypothetically examined by this Court taking note of the said Gift-deed. 9. Section 109 of the TP Act of 1882 is quoted herein below for ready reference: -“109. Rights of lessor's transferee:-If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subjected to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him; Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium on rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased.” 10. The said proviso to Section 109 of the TP Act coupled with the settled legal position that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and it requires no consent of the lessee only entitles the transferee to substitute himself/herself in place of earlier landlord and claim eviction and rent from the tenant, but that does not exclude earlier landlord or lessor dis-entitling him to continue with the eviction proceedings so long as the rent is continued to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, even after transfer of the suit property in question and, therefore, the landlord has a right to seek eviction. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. Section 109 of the TP Act is subject to the contract to the contrary, which may be express or implied. Had the tenant any objection, she could have immediately replied to the quit notice of Advocate of landlord, which is also produced by her now. But, no such objection was raised but on the contrary she denied the title of the landlord and her relationship of landlord-tenant and treated the father of landlord Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, as her landlord, and on this ground the eviction decree has been given under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Act of 1950. The term “landlord” has been deliberately defined in an expanded manner under the Rent Control Act, 1950, an special law, to include even the person, who merely collects the rent, or has right to receive the rent irrespective of his being the owner of the property. The word “Landlord” is defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950, as under: - “(iii). “Landlord” means any persons who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account of as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises are let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant.” 11. The proviso of Section 109 of the Act of 1882, quoted above, indicates that the transferee is not entitled to the arrears of rent due before the transfer, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent all over again to the transferee. While protecting the lessee or tenant from the double payment of rent in question, this proviso also reflects that the lessor or landlord, can continue to have right to collect the rent and seek eviction even after transfer of the suit property subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee of the suit property, express or implied; and such later situation is thus not excluded even under Section 109 of the TP Act. 12. 12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the plaintiff/landlord if the fact of execution of gift-deed in favour of his sister-in-law was not brought to the notice of the courts below, which is now sought to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by way of additional evidence at the stage of second appeal. Since the question of title or ownership is not relevant in Rent control and eviction matters, and the fact that the plaintiff right from 1974 continued to realize rent from the present appellant/defendant and his brother also collected rent on his behalf and his right to seek eviction as landlord cannot be questioned by the defendant despite the transfer of property by him. The transferee or the donee under the gift Smt. Anita Mertiya has not raised any objection to the plaintiff seeking the eviction. No such document/averment is there on record. Even if it is assumed to be true as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit property has been transferred by him by executing a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Anita Mertiya, his sister-in-law, the plaintiff/landlord, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, still had the right to seek eviction even after the transfer by way of gift. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LR's & Anr. Vs. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court has held as under: - “10. The natural landlord of a premises is ordinarily the owner. However, an expanded definition has been given in various rents statutes of many States for the reason that sometimes the owner may not himself be in a position to collect the rent and may hence appoint an agent or authorize any person to collect rent on his behalf because he may be abroad or is unable to do so for any other reason. This does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal Vs. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. This is the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Madan Lal Vs. Shri Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641. We approve of the view taken in the said decision. If we interpret the definition of 'landlord' in the Act literally it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the owner who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant, his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences, it should be avoided, and a purposive interpretation be given.” 14. While the aforesaid case related to a Trust property and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Trustee can pursue the eviction proceedings if he is duly authorized by the Trust, the same analogy cannot be applied here in the present case as property in question has been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of “landlord” under the Act of 1950. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, Smt. Anita Mertiya has questioned the right of the present plaintiff, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, to receive the rent from the defendant in this suit premises or shop in question even after gift in the year 2004 and as per the other hand receipt of the rent by the donor, Dr. Surendramal Mertiya after 2004 shows an implied authority by her in favour of plaintiff to collect such rent and seek eviction on her behalf. The Hon'ble Apex Court itself held that the expanded meaning given to the term 'landlord' under Section 3 (iii) of the Act of 1950 does not mean that the natural meaning of the word 'landlord', who is the owner of the premises, would disappear and that the owner goes out of the picture altogether. 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas Vs. Bhagwandas reported in 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma Vs. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369. 16. 15. The attornment in favour of transferee is automatic is a well settled legal position, which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Shrivas Vs. Bhagwandas reported in 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 450 (SC), and this Court in the case of Ram Saran Sharma Vs. Kamla Acharya reported in 2001 AIHC 2369. 16. In the case of Ram Saran Sharma (supra), this Court in para 17 held as under: - “17. As regards the law of attornment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attornment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the and profits thereof. Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. An identical question camp up for consideration in case of Mahendra Raghunath Das (1997 (5) (SC) 363) (supra), wherein, it is ruled by the Supreme Court, which reads thus: - “It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord.” 17. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan Vs. Ram Kishore reported in and held as under: - “18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. A cooordinate bench of this Court again examined the provisions of Section 109 of the T.P. Act for automatic attornment in favour of transferee in the case of Laxmi Narayan Vs. Ram Kishore reported in and held as under: - “18. The aforesaid question also came up for consideration, before me, in case of Mohd. Hussain Vs Uakoob, reported in 1997 (2) RCR 443, wherein, it is ruled that tenant has no legal justification to question oral gift. Giving notice to tenant by landlords regarding change in ownership is a mere technicality. It was held in the aforesaid case that question of title is foreign, in a suit for eviction by landlord against tenant, but in abundant caution, where such issues are found to be necessary, it can be raised incidentally. It was held that because the transferee is clothed with right to recover rent and eject lessee, no payment of rent or attornment to lessor is necessary. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the landlord plaintiff respondent, mentioned hereinabove, indicates towards the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, the question of attornment by landlord, is no more res integra”. 19. As such, from the above, it is apparent that neither any attornment was necessary on part of the tenant for conferring the right to receive the rent, nor any notice in this regard was necessary for the purpose of alleged attornment. 20. Besides the above, the definition of landlord under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Rent Contrl Act, 2001 ('the Act') reads as under:- “(c) “landlord” means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant.” 21. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person 'who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord. 22. It would be seen from the above definition that it is not only the person, who for the time being is receiving the rent, but even a person 'who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver,' is included in the definition of landlord. 22. The expression entitled to receive the rent in the aforesaid definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited, as a transferee of the lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes a landlord under Section 2 (c) of the Act. Tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Act or to claim rent. Hence, in the case of a valid transfer of premises by the lessor by way of sale, as the transferee would be entitled to receive the rent of the premises, he would fall within the definition of landlord.” 18. In the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 1113 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord cannot be given, where such landlord has sold the suit property, losing his interest in the suit property altogether, is not applicable in the facts of present case, where decree has not been given on the ground of bonafide necessity of landlord, though claimed on that ground, but on the ground of denial of relationship of landlord-tenant and thus denial of landlord's title and his right to seek eviction. 19. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad Vs. Masoodbi reported in AIR 1991 MP 23 , dealing with a similar controversy, held that Section 109 of the T.P. Act is subject to the contract to the contrary and the lessor can retain the right to seek eviction and terminate the tenancy despite transfer of the suit property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this: - “This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. The relevant extract of the said judgments like this: - “This section speaks of a transfer of property by a lessor while the lease subsists. He may transfer the entire property or he may transfer a part of it or he may even transfer any part of his interest in that property. In each of these transfers, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is owner of it. At the same time, the transferee shall be subject to all liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred if the lessee so elects. When the lessor sells the entire property leased, the transferee gets all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice because the right to terminate the lease by a quit notice is the right of the lessor and Section 109 enables the transferee to exercise all the rights of the lessor including the right to terminate the lease. (See Sardarilal v. Narayanlal (FB). The above statutory consequences shall follow “in absence of a contract to the contrary”. This means that it is open to the transferor lessor and his transferee to agree to term which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since ordinarily, on transfer of the entire ownership of the property leased, the right to terminate the lease stands transferred to the transferee by force of Section 109 of the Transfer of Prperty Act, in my opinion, it is open to the transferor and the transferee to agree that notwithstanding the transfer, the rights to terminate the lease and to enforce the right of reversion shall continue to vest in the lessor. Such a term shall be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the expression “in the absence of a contract to the contrary” appearing in that section enables a transferor of a property leased to agree to such a term. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In such an event, it shall be permissible for the lessor despite such transfer of the property leased, to enforce the right of reversion by filing a suit against the tenant. In the instant case, the finding recorded is and it is also obvious from the sale deed Ex.P-1 that there was an agreement between transferor (respondent) and her transferee that it is the respondent who shall secure possession of the property from the lessee, i.e., from the appellant. That being so, I would, therefore, answer both the questions against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and hold that despite transfer of the property by sale, the respondent retained the right to recover the possession from the appellant-tenant in view of the express agreement between her and her transferee in that behalf. Consequently, the appellant must fail.” 20. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid views, this Court is of the considered opinion that the attornment in favour of transferee is automatic and no consent of the tenant or lessee is required but at the time same time, lessor or the landlord, who continues to receive the rent from the tenant as in the present case, his right to seek eviction cannot be said to have been extinguished with the transfer of suit property by way of gift in favour of a third person, who incidentally in the present happens to be a close relative. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to upset the eviction decree, concurrently granted by the two courts below on the ground of denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late Sh. Sumermal Mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord Dr. Surendramal Mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to Smt. Anita Mertiya W/o Sh. Ummedmal Mertiya, his sister-in-law by way of gift-deed. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed. 21. The eviction decree given under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Act as quoted above, therefore, deserves to be upheld and the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same does not actually raise any substantial question of law and the same is hereby dismissed. 21. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from April, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiff/respondent, also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondent, within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiff/respondent on or before 31.12.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/respondent or the owner of the suit property shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.