JUDGMENT 1. Appellants-tenants have filed this second appeal invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.18/2013 by Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer affirming the judgment and decree for eviction dated 26.02.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.110/1993 (52/88) by Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer. 2. The rented premise is a shop for which the tenancy was created on 14.06.1987 @ Rs.375/- per month. 3. Later on respondent-landlord by way of notice dated 15.05.1988 terminated the tenancy and instituted the eviction suit invoking the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. During course of trial, the provisional rent was determined. Appellants-tenants remained fail to deposit the provisional rent, hence their defence was struck down vide order dated 17.11.2011. 5. The trial court, after recording evidence of parties, found that the legal notice dated 15.05.1988 issued by respondent-landlord was served upon tenants through registered post, hence the tenancy stands terminated. Accordingly, the decree for eviction and arrears of rent was passed vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2013. 6. The judgment and decree for eviction and arrears of rent was assailed by way of first appeal. Before the first appellate court, one of the tenants namely Sh.Himmataram has entered into compromise with respondents, however, the legal heirs of another co-tenant pursued the first appeal on merits. 7. The first appellate court re-heard the matter on all the issues and affirmed the fact findings of the trial court and finally dismissed the first appeal vide judgment dated 31.10.2014 affirming the decree for eviction. 8. Hence, against the concurrent findings of fact, this second appeal has been filed. 9. At the outset, this Court is of opinion that two courts below have observed that the tenancy of the appellants was terminated by way of issuing a valid and lawful notice dated 15.05.1988, which has been sent through registered post. There is no dispute about the fact that the notice has been served upon appellants- tenants. The defence of appellants-tenants is only to the effect that later on during course of trial of the suit it transpired that the landlord is not the real owner but one another person namely Mr. Watson Wells is the real owner of the rented premise. 10. The defence of appellants-tenants is only to the effect that later on during course of trial of the suit it transpired that the landlord is not the real owner but one another person namely Mr. Watson Wells is the real owner of the rented premise. 10. In rebuttal, the said plea, respondent-landlord has placed on record a compromise with Mr. Watson Wells to show that he is not concerned with the rented shop and the respondent-plaintiff is the real owner as well as landlord. Otherwise, appellants-tenants were paying rent to respondent-landlord, hence they are stopped to assail the relationship status of the respondent as landlord by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. 11. Be that as it may, in the aforesaid factual matrix, in view of concurrent findings of fact and considering the scope of the present litigation, there is no substantial question of law has involved in this second appeal. More particularly, when one of the co-tenants had already entered into compromise at the first appellate stage. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree on merits. 12. At this juncture, on instruction of appellants, the counsel submits that at least some reasonable time may be granted to the appellant, to vacate the rented shop and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord. 13. Having heard learned counsel for appellants and considering the aforesaid aspects, this Court deems it just and proper to grant three months time to appellants-defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the rented shop to the respondent- landlord, if has not already been handed over, however, the grant of time would be subject to payment of arrears of rent and future rent as mesne profits. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned judgment and decree for eviction is maintained and the second appeal stands disposed of. 15. Stay application as well as any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 16. Record of both courts below be sent back.