JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Anoopgarh and the judgment & decree dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, whereby the suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the respondent has been decreed and the first appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed, respectively. 2. The respondent-plaintiff Smt. Kanta Devi filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellant, inter-alia, with the submissions that at main market opposite old Bus Stand, Anoopgarh, plaintiff's immovable property is situated wherein shops exist. From the said shops, two shops whose joint size is 10' x 20' were let out by the plaintiff to the defendant @ Rs.9,000/- p.a. by oral agreement with the delivery of possession. 3. Rent upto the month of December, 2013 was paid to the plaintiff. Whereafter, neither the rent was paid, nor tendered nor sent by money order. 4. For the period January, 2014 to July, 2015, rent of Rs.14,250/- remained in arrears. It was submitted that as at the back of the rented premises there is open land, for which there is no ingress or egress, the plaintiff wants to demolish the shop and create way for the premises at the back of the shop. It was indicated that by registered notice dated 27.06.2015, the tenancy has been terminated w.e.f. 30.06.2015, which notice the defendant has refused to receive. It was prayed that the possession of the suit premises be delivered and arrears amounting to Rs.14,250/- till July, 2015 and thereafter, @ 750/- p.m. be decreed. 5. A written statement was filed by the appellant-defendant, inter-alia, indicating that no immovable property belonging to the plaintiff is situated in front of old Bus Stand and there are no shops. It was denied that the shop in question was taken on rent by way of oral agreement with delivery of possession from the plaintiff. It was claimed that the patta by the Municipal Board, Anoopgarh was issued in the name of Smt. Bharpai in the year 1958-59, there is no record regarding Smt. Bharpai having transferred the said property. Shri Bheemraj illegally transferred the land by way of sale deed dated 20.06.1960 to Shyamsunder S/o Banshidhar, how Bheemraj got right qua the plot is not available on record. Shri Bheemraj illegally transferred the land by way of sale deed dated 20.06.1960 to Shyamsunder S/o Banshidhar, how Bheemraj got right qua the plot is not available on record. Shyamsunder is brother-in-law of the plaintiff and he has executed the sale deed dated 06.08.1976 in favour of the plaintiff. Shyamsunder had no right; the plaintiff has no right and title in the suit property; the defendant never paid rent to the plaintiff till December, 2013; the plaintiff has no right in the property; rest of the averments pertaining to the bonafide necessity etc. were denied. The validity of notice was also questioned. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 6. The trial court framed four issues. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff herself was examined as PW-1 and she produced 16 documents. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself was examined and he produced 02 documents. 7. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plea raised during the course of evidence by the defendant that the shop in question was taken on rent from Ghanshyam and till the death of Shivpratap, the rent was being paid to him, could not be countenanced and no such plea was taken in the written statement. It was admitted by the defendant that the electricity connection in the shop is in the name of Smt. Kanta Devi and the water connection is in the name of Shyamsunder. 8. The trial court further relying on the documents produced in relation to S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1663/2015 by tenant Bajranglal alongwith Jaswant Singh and one Bhanwar Lal, wherein the defendant admitted his signatures on Vakalatnama (Exhibit10) and also admitted the contents of the petition filed before the High Court (Exhibit-8), were correct and relying on the Income Tax Returns for 8-10 years, though the same were not exhibited, wherein receipt of rent from Bajranglal was indicated, found that there was no material contradiction of the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. 9. The trial court also came to the conclusion that as the notice Exhibit-6 has been returned with the endorsement of 'refused', the same was sufficient service on the defendant of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer and Property Act, 1882 ('the Act') and ultimately, based on its findings decreed the suit. 10. 9. The trial court also came to the conclusion that as the notice Exhibit-6 has been returned with the endorsement of 'refused', the same was sufficient service on the defendant of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer and Property Act, 1882 ('the Act') and ultimately, based on its findings decreed the suit. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal, the first appellate court, after hearing the parties, reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the two courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and consequently, neither the notice under Section 106 of the Act was valid nor the suit at the instance of the plaintiff was maintainable and therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 12. Learned counsel emphasized that there is no material available on record to sustain the findings of the two courts below regarding existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. 13. Submissions were made that there is no evidence to indicate any payment of rent by the appellant to the plaintiff and therefore, as the entire basis of the suit i.e. existence of landlordtenant relationship is missing, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 14. Submissions were made that the heavy reliance was placed on the proceedings before the High Court in a Criminal Misc. Petition, which it was clearly explained by the appellant that the same was filed by one Bhanwar Lal and only Vakalatnama was given, as FIR was wrongly lodged against Bhanwar Lal and appellant alongwith Jaswant Singh and therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said document for establishing the landlord-tenant relationship. 15. Submissions were made that merely because the electricity connection stood in the name of Smt. Kanta Devi and the water connection stood in the name of Shyamsunder, the same could not prove the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and therefore, the entire basis on which the two courts below came to the conclusion on the said issue is wholly perverse. 16. 16. Submissions were made that the trial court was not justified in relying on unexhibited Income Tax Returns for coming to the conclusion about existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and therefore, the finding recorded by the two courts below on this count alone deserves to be set-aside. 17. In relation to the validity of notice under Section 106 of the Act, it was submitted that the appellant clearly denied that he had refused the notice allegedly sent to him and therefore, it was incumbent on the respondent to have examined the postman, who had made the alleged endorsement of refusal on the envelop. In absence of any evidence in support of alleged refusal, the courts below were not justified in drawing presumption about delivery of notice to the appellant. 18. It was prayed that appeal be admitted as the same involve substantial questions of law. 19. Reliance was placed on Kishore Kumar v. Smt. Daya,2017 3 CCC 397, Sharda Alika v. Harji Lal Alika,2017 4 RLW 3457, Hajrabi Abdul Gani v. Abdul Latif Azizulla & Ors, (1996) AIR Bombay 192, Dinesh Dubey & Ors. v. Rajnesh Kishore Dubey & Ors. : S.B. Civil First Appeal No.225/2017, decided on 27.02.2020 (at Jaipur Bench). 20. Learned counsel for the respondent appearing on caveat vehemently opposed the submissions. 21. It was submitted that the appellant was seeking to mischievously deny the landlord-tenant relationship and in fact, had indulged in denying the title of the respondent-plaintiff and therefore, the plea raised in this regard deserves to be rejected. 22. Submissions were made that both the courts, based on evidence available on record, have rightly come to the conclusion on the issue of landlord-tenant relationship and the validity of the notice issued, which do not call for any interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC as the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 23. Submissions were made that the attempted denial made by the appellant regarding the various documents placed on record to establish the landlord-tenant relationship and to claim the ownership in someone else, has no basis and therefore, the judgments impugned passed by the two courts below do not call for any interference. 24. 23. Submissions were made that the attempted denial made by the appellant regarding the various documents placed on record to establish the landlord-tenant relationship and to claim the ownership in someone else, has no basis and therefore, the judgments impugned passed by the two courts below do not call for any interference. 24. It was submitted that the petition filed before the High Court, wherein the appellant has admitted his signatures on Vakalatnama, specific admission has been made regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and even in the statement before the trial court during course of evidence, the contents of Exhibit-8 were clearly admitted. 25. Submissions were made that the appellant was seeking to take advantage of the fact that on the patta of the property issued by the Municipal Board, Anoopgarh, it was indicated that while the application was filed by Smt. Bharpai, who was wife of Bheemraj, the patta was issued in the name of Bheemraj and said Bheemraj had transferred the property to plaintiff's brother Shyamsunder, who, in-turn, transferred the same to the plaintiff and therefore, the objections sought to be raised in this regard are absolutely baseless. 26. It was submitted that the appellant has admitted that the electricity connection is in the name of Smt. Kanta Devi, which electricity bills he was paying since long. However, denied that he did not know who Smt. Kanta Devi was, who is the plaintiff herself and that the water connection was in the name of Shyamsunder, the predecessor in title and brother-in-law of the plaintiff and therefore, the attempt made in this regard being absolutely baseless, the two courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. 27. Submissions were made that the appellant, attempted to some how protect his possession of the shop in question by supporting other tenant Jaswant Singh, who got a power of attorney from Ghanshyam S/o Shivpratap, after the suits were filed against both of them, in the name of his sons and got filed a suit seeking to question the title of the plaintiff, which action clearly brings out the malafides on part of the appellant and on that count also, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 28. 28. Further submissions were made that the appellant admitted that notice was sent to him at his correct address and as such, the endorsement of the postman, without any further evidence on part of the appellant cannot be disputed, wherein it is specifically indicated that the same was refused. On account of refusal, the service of notice is sufficient and therefore, the plea raised regarding validity of the notice also has no substance. 29. It was also pointed out that in execution of the impugned decree, the respondent has already taken possession of the shop in question. It was further submitted that the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant is a question of fact and the same cannot be assailed in the second appeal. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 30. Reliance was placed on LRs of Mool Chand v. Chhitarmal & Ors.,2004 2 DNJ(Raj) 848; Dharmichand v. Parasmal & Anr. : S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.77/2008, decided on 19.09.2008; Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited v. Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, (2015) 5 SCC 539 ; Vipin Jain & Anr. v. Bhagwandas & Ors. : S.B. Civil First Appeal No.41/2010, decided on 07.09.2012; Seth Murlidhar Mansinghka Chairity Trust v. Rajendra Kumar,2017 SCCOnLineRaj 3248; Harcharan Singh v. Smt. Shivrani & Ors., (1981) 2 SCC 535 ; Samir Mukherjee v. Davinder K Bajaj & Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 259 . 31. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and made available by learned counsel for the parties during course of submissions. 32. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction of the shop in question based on termination of tenancy by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Act. Though, ground pertaining to bonafide necessity was also indicated, however, as the Rent Control Act is not applicable to the area in question, the said grounds had no relevance. 33. The suit was resisted by the appellant while denying the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and himself and additionally, it was claimed that the notice issued was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Act. 34. 33. The suit was resisted by the appellant while denying the landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and himself and additionally, it was claimed that the notice issued was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Act. 34. As already noticed herein-before, the two courts below based on the pleadings, oral & documentary evidence came to the concurrent findings that the landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties and that the notice issued was in consonance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Act. The appellant has questioned the findings by seeking to discredit the material relied on by the two courts below for reaching the conclusion regarding existence of landlord-tenant relationship. 35. On behalf of the plaintiff, evidence was led to indicate the chain of title to the property wherein the patta was issued in the name of Bheemraj, who transferred the property to Shyamsunder, who in-turn, transferred the same to Smt. Kanta Devi - plaintiff in 1976. It is not in dispute that the electricity connection of the shop even now stands in the name of Smt. Kanta Devi and water connection in the name of Shyamsunder. The said aspects are prima-facie sufficient to come to the conclusion pertaining to the aspect that the plaintiff has the ownership of the suit property. 36. The title was sought to be questioned based on the fact that in the patta (Ex.-1) issued by the Municipal Board, Anoopgarh at the beginning name of Smt. Bharpai has been indicated. The patta (Ex.-1) in the beginning indicates as under :- 37. The patta, thereafter has been issue qua the area in the name of Bheemraj, husband of Smt. Bharpai. The indication at the beginning, as quoted herein-before, starts with 'nj :' which necessarily means that the application was filed by Smt. Bharpai, however, the patta has been issued to her husband Bheemraj. Bheemraj in-turn, as already noticed herein-before, transferred the property to Shyamsunder and Shyamsunder transferred it to the plaintiff and therefore, the confusion sought to be created in this regard by the appellant has apparently no basis. 38. The plaintiff placed on record the certified copy of Criminal Misc. Petition (Exhibit-8) filed before this Court, wherein, interalia, the following was indicated :- "1. 38. The plaintiff placed on record the certified copy of Criminal Misc. Petition (Exhibit-8) filed before this Court, wherein, interalia, the following was indicated :- "1. That one plot No.26 measuring (20x60) situated at Old Bus Stand in Anoopgarh was in the name of Kanta Sharma W/o Narendra Kumar, resident of 35, Industrial Area, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. This plot was converted into two shops which were given on rent by Narendra Kumar and Kanta Sharma. prior to 04.07.2014 one shop measuring 10x20 (11x20) feet was given on rent to Smt. Sunita W/o Jitendra Kumar and another shop measuring 9x16 feet is given on rent present Shri Bajrang Lal Swami is the tenant in the said shop." 39. The appellant admitted his signatures on the Vakalatnama (Exhibit-10) filed alongwith the Misc. Petition, but for the contents of the petition lay the burden on Bhanwar Lal. However, on further cross-examination, admitted filing of criminal proceedings by the plaintiff against the appellant and Jaswant Singh and clearly admitted qua the contents of the Misc. Petition as under :- 40. The said admission regarding the contents of the petition as quoted herein-before, and the contents essentially concludes the issue and the plea sought to be raised seeking to deny the landlord-tenant relationship, cannot apparently be countenanced. Though, it is true that the trial court could not have placed reliance on the Income Tax Returns of the plaintiff, which were not exhibited, however, the said aspect by itself is not sufficient for this Court to admit the appeal on the said aspect, inasmuch as, even if, the said returns are not taken into consideration, there is enough material available on record to sustain the finding recorded by the two courts below. 41. In view of the above, the plea sought to be raised seeking to deny the landlord-tenant relationship cannot be countenanced. 42. So far as the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Kishore Kumar (supra) and Sharda Alika (supra) are concerned, in the said cases there was no admission on part of the defendants, as in the present case and the said cases were decided based on the facts obtaining in those cases and have no application to the facts of the present case. 43. 43. Coming to the issue regarding the alleged non-service of notice under Section 106 of the Act on the appellant, a bare look at the Exhibit-6, which is an undelivered Registered A/D envelop sent to the appellant reveals that the same was sent by the counsel for the plaintiff to the appellant. The appellant in his statement admitted that the address indicated on the envelop was correct. The envelop clearly bears the endorsement made by the postman regarding refusal to receive the article. It is well settled that a notice sent under Section 106 of the Act, if refused by the tenant, the same is a sufficient service of the notice. 44. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puwada Venketeswara Rao v. Chidamana Venkata Ramana, (1976) AIR SC 869, observed that where a notice by registered post is returned with endorsement 'refused' it is not always necessary to produce the postman who tried to affect the service. 45. In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC 602 , the Supreme Court observed as under: "8. There is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. No doubt the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the registered letter to him or that there was no occasion for him to refuse the same. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the Party, challenging the factum of service. In the instant case the respondent failed to discharge this burden as he failed to place material before the Court to show that the endorsement made by the postal authorities was wrong and incorrect. Mere denial made by the respondent in the circumstances of the case was not sufficient to rebut the presumption relating to service of the registered cover. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the letter dated 24-4-1974 was served on the respondent and he refused to accept the same. Consequently, the service was complete and the view taken by the High Court is incorrect." 46. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the letter dated 24-4-1974 was served on the respondent and he refused to accept the same. Consequently, the service was complete and the view taken by the High Court is incorrect." 46. Again, in Anil Kumar v. Nanak Chandra Verma, (1990) AIR SC 1215, it was held that a bare statement of a tenant on oath denying receipt of the notice or that he has not refused to accept its delivery, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of service which arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Similarly, in Basant Singh & Anr. v. Roman Catholic Mission, (2002) AIR SC 3557, it was held that a bald statement that registered letter was not tendered to him without any material evidence in support would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption of law regarding service of letter. 47. In the case of Har Charan Singh (supra), it was held that when a registered envelope is tendered by postman to the addressee and he refuses to accept it, presumption of due service arises and in such cases knowledge of the contents of the letter can always be imputed to the addressee. 48. In view of the above factual status and legal position, it cannot be said that there has been non-compliance of provisions of Section 106 of the Act. 49. So far as the period of notice is concerned, admittedly, the suit was filed on 04.08.2015, whereas, the notice was refused on 29.06.2015 and therefore, the same was clearly filed after 15 days from the said date and in terms of provisions of Section 106(3) of the Act, a notice is not invalid merely because the period mentioned in the notice falls short of the period specified under sub-section (1), where a suit is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-section (1). 50. In view thereof, the second issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant also apparently has no substance. 51. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.