LAWS(KAR)-2023-8-1316

SYED ABDUL RUB Vs. M. NIRMALA

Decided On August 01, 2023
SYED ABDUL RUB Appellant
V/S
M. NIRMALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

(2.) The main contention of the appellant's counsel that Exs.P3 and P4 are created and signature is forged and both the Courts have committed an error in accepting the documents Exs.P3 and P4 and notice of termination and postal acknowledgement and appellant's counsel also framed the substantive question of law contending that suit is not maintainable in law in the absence of issuance of statutory notice as required under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act and both the Courts below are not justified in giving finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative without considering the wrong address on Ex.P3 and forged signature on Ex.P4 and judgment and decree of both the Courts are not sustainable and concurrent finding is erroneous and notice issued has not been served to the defendant and the same is not sufficient to dismiss the suit.

(3.) Having heard the appellant's counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellant has not led any evidence before the Court, even not cross-examine PW1 in spite of the written statement is filed before the Court and with regard to the issuance of notice in paragraph No.25 of the judgment of the Trial Court, it is specifically mentioned that notice was issued and the same was duly served on the defendant and admittedly by paying two months arrears of rent to the second plaintiff, the defendant himself admitted that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and also in paragraph No.26 of the Trial Court judgment, the Trial Court held that no reasons need to be assigned for termination of lease under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the same is settled law and also in case of termination of lease under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, no reasons need to be assigned and the same is valid termination and even not cross examined PW1 and also not led any evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff and hence the evidence given by PW1 and documents produced by the plaintiff are remained unchallenged.