ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. The defendant appellant has preferred the instant second appeal against judgment and decree dated 20.9.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2013 passed by Civil Judge (JD), Kotputli, District Jaipur, in a suit for eviction and arrears instituted by the respondent plaintiffs under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant appellant contended that both the courts committed a grave error in ignoring the pivotal fact that notice u/s 106 TP Act was given only to one of the joint tenant and in absence of any notice on the other joint tenants, the suit for eviction was bound to fail and further contended that admittedly even receipt of the registry produced on record show only the name of Shanker Lal and thus, there was no sufficient notice. Learned counsel further contended that the defendant has spent a sum of Rs.70,000/- upon construction and repair of shop and also paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the erstwhile owner Smt. Koyali Devi as pagri, but no issue was framed upon these vital aspects and as such the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are perverse and illegal. Learned counsel also relied on Chintaman & Another v. State of Maharashtra & Another AIR 1997 SC 448 , Narayan v. Gopal AIR 1960 SC 100 , Budh Sen v. Sheet Chandra Agarwal & Others AIR 1978 Allahabad 88, Nanna v. Hafiz Abdul Saleem 1999 DNJ [Raj.] 341, V. Konnappan v. Mangot Velia Kunniyil Manikkam & others AIR 1968 Kerala 229, Himmat Singh v. Manohar Singh & Others 2013 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 155. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent landlord supporting the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below urged that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and no interference is warranted u/s 100 CPC against concurrent finding returned by both the courts below. Learned counsel contended that notice was to both the tenants and the Postal department only mentions name of the first person and as both the brothers were living together, the notice could not have been denied by the appellant. Learned counsel contended that notice was to both the tenants and the Postal department only mentions name of the first person and as both the brothers were living together, the notice could not have been denied by the appellant. Learned counsel also contended that even in the cross examination of the appellant himself he had accepted that he had received a notice of eviction and when he himself has admitted to it, the finding recorded by both the courts below is well reasoned and is not required to be interfered. Learned counsel also contended that the claim of the appellant was denied by Smt. Koyali Devi. Learned counsel also relied upon judgments rendered in the case of Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay AIR 1963 SC 468 , M/s. Park Street Properties (Pvt) Limited v. Dipak Kumar Singh & Another AIR 2016 SC 4038 , Budh Sen v. Sheel Chandra Agarwal & Others (supra), Shri Nath & Another v. Smt. Saraswati Devi Jaiswal AIR 1964 Allahabad 52. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. It is an admitted position that the tenancy in controversy is not a protected tenancy under the Rent Act but is governed by the general provisions of TP Act. In a suit for eviction under the TP Act as soon as relationship of landlord and tenant is proved and tenancy is terminated by service of notice as per section 106 of the TP Act or comes to an end by afflux of time or other conditions as enumerated u/s 113 of the TP Act, eviction decree is bound to follow. 6. In the instant case, respondent plaintiffs have purchased the property vide a registered sale-deed dated 31.1.2008 from the erstwhile owner Smt. Koyali Devi. It is not denied by the defendant appellant that Smt. Koyali Devi was not the landlord/owner or not entitled to execute sale-deed in favour of the respondent plaintiffs. As a corollary, by force of law as soon as Smt. Koyali Devi executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, they became owner/landlord of the same. It is well settled that atornment by the tenant is not a pre-condition to vest title in a person in whose favour the erstwhile landlord/owner executes a registered sale-deed. As a corollary, by force of law as soon as Smt. Koyali Devi executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, they became owner/landlord of the same. It is well settled that atornment by the tenant is not a pre-condition to vest title in a person in whose favour the erstwhile landlord/owner executes a registered sale-deed. Thus, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant appellant and the plaintiff respondents, is well established and the same was found to exist by both the courts below. 7. Now, as far as the objection with regard to the issue of notice raised by the defendant appellant is concerned, this court is of the view that the same being devoid of any merits, deserves to be rejected. It is settled proposition of law that where tenancy terminates by efflux of time, service of a quit notice is not obligatory. In the instant case, there is a rent note dated 15.6.2000 for a period of 11 months. Both the courts have concurrently upheld this rent note as proved. Thus, after efflux of 11 months time, the tenancy stood terminated as per section 113 TP Act and giving of notice was merely surplusage. 8. Apart from the above, the respondent landlord served a quit notice dated 26.2.2009 by registered post terminating the tenancy as per section 106 TP Act and both the courts have concurrently held the validity of the same and no error appears, in such conclusion drawn by the courts below. 9. Insofar as the contention with respect to the alleged payment of pagri of Rs.1,00,000/- to the erstwhile landlord and the amount of Rs.70,000/- alleged to be spent on repair and construction are concerned, the same also deserves to be rejected for there is no counter claim with respect to these objections, and further these objections are not germane for decision on eviction under the TP Act. Even otherwise, such allegations were found baseless by both the courts below and even denied by Smt. Koyali Devi in her statements and this court does not find any perversity or illegality in such conclusion drawn. 10. Resultantly, no substantial question of law is involved in this instant appeal, and the appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.