JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it transpires that the Original Suit No.370 of 2007 was instituted for eviction of Smt. Asha Rani (defendant/appellant) from the property which is the part of Mahavir Dal Dharamshala, a religious charitable trust. Smt. Asha Rani presented her Written Statement on 03.10.2008 with the averments that way back in 1969, such property was given in possession of her father-in-law late Karam Chand, as a tenant, in lieu of the monthly rent of Rs.25/-. As against the said averments of the plaint, it was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff that during the course of employment, Karam Chand was inducted in the property as a licencee in lieu of the services rendered by him in the Trust. The services of Mr. Karam Chand came to an end in 1969 and he passed away from this mortal world in the year 1978 leaving the possession of the property, in question, with his wife, son Visnu Dutt, daughter-in-law Smt. Asha Rani along with her four children. Later on, in the course of time, three daughters of Vishnu Dutt, namely, Smt. Soniya, Smt. Ritu and Smt. Pooja, were married and thus, they left this Dharamshala to abode in their in-laws house. With the passage of time, Karam Chand’s wife as also his son (Vishnu Dutt) passed away and now, the property is under occupation of Smt. Asha Rani and Rakesh Dutt (daughter-in-law and grandson of Karam Chand respectively). 2. Defendant resisted the suit with the averments, as have been indicated above, but such suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar vide judgment dated 20.4.2013 and the appeal where-against has also been dismissed, on merits, by learned Second Additional District Judge, Haridwar on 19.2.2016. Hence, this second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has put forth his submissions that in the Replica dated 2.9.2011 filed by the plaintiff, tenancy of the defendants was not specifically denied. The Court feels that his contention made on behalf of the appellants is wholly unsubstantial and thus, rejected for the reason that the entire pleadings clearly demonstrate the status of Smt. Asha Rani in so many words that she, along with her children, succeeded in possession after the death of Karam Chand and his wife. The Court feels that his contention made on behalf of the appellants is wholly unsubstantial and thus, rejected for the reason that the entire pleadings clearly demonstrate the status of Smt. Asha Rani in so many words that she, along with her children, succeeded in possession after the death of Karam Chand and his wife. Not a single receipt or proof of any kind showing payment of rent was ever brought on record by defendants. Thus, she is wholly an un-authorized occupant in the property. Hence, no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was ever needed. 4. In addition to the above, learned counsel has further argued that under Article 66 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for possession of immovable property, the suit must be instituted within 12 years from the date when the plaintiff had become entitled to possession by reason of any forfeiture or breach of condition. In the opinion of the Court, this Article also does not have any application in the matter for the simple reason that firstly, no such averment was ever made by the defendants in their written statement and secondly, this was not the matter depicting to make the plaintiff entitled for possession by reason of any forfeiture or breach of condition. 5. A fortiori, the substantial questions of law, as have been framed in the memo of appeal, also do not have any worth in the matter. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that this appeal has no force and it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. Appeal is dismissed accordingly.