R. S. A. No. 3979 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. S. A. No. 3979 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.12.2008 Ram Nath ..... Appellant vs Amrit Lal .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendant is in second appeal before this court against concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession by ejectment from Shop No. 699 and for recovery of Rs. 5,100/- on account of arrears of rent was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent/plaintiff being the owner and landlord of Shop No. 699 situated near Anaj Mandi, Naraingarh, District Ambala, filed a suit for possession with the plea that the said shop was constructed in the year 1990 after getting plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, Naraingarh, vide resolution dated 5.2.1990 and thereafter the same was let out to the appellant/defendant vide rent note dated 12.6.1990 for a period of 12 months @ Rs. 600/- per month. The rate of rent was increased to Rs. 1,000/- per month vide endorsement on the rent note dated 13.5.1998 with effect from 1.11.1998. As the appellant failed to pay the rent with effect from 1.4.1999 and also that the shop in question was required by the respondent/plaintiff for his bonafide use and occupation, the suit came to be filed, as on his request the appellant/defendant failed to vacate the shop in question. Prior to the filing of the suit a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon the appellant which remained un-complied with. In response to the suit filed, the appellant raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit and also that in fact he was tenant since the year 1980. The rent note dated 12.6.1990 was said to be R. S. A. No. 3979 of 2008 (2) forged and fabricated document and also that the shop in question was not constructed in the year 1990 as is sought to be claimed by the respondent/plaintiff. On consideration of the material placed on record by the parties, the learned court below came to the conclusion that the rent note executed by the appellant/defendant on 12.6.1990 was a validly executed document on which the appellant admitted his signatures. Coupled with the fact that the shop was reconstructed in the year 1990, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act were applicable and suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was maintainable. The plea set up by the appellant that in fact the shop was let out to him in the year 1980 was discarded relying upon oral admission of the appellant in the form of rent note wherein it has been specifically admitted by him that shop was newly constructed in the year 1990. It is against this concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below that the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have not considered the material placed on record but have also misread the evidence led which renders the finding recorded by the courts below to be totally perverse. Reference was made to the statement of PW2 Narinder Sharma and PW4 Arun Kumar where they stated that the appellant was tenant in the shop for the last about 20 years. Coupled with this, the evidence in the form of release of water connection, electric connection, clearly established that the appellant was in possession of the shop in question much before 1990 when the alleged rent note was said to have been executed, which was coercion. However, the contentions raised are totally misconceived. Rent note dated 12.6.1990 execution of which was initially denied by the appellant/defendant but during the course of evidence before the court below he could not substantiate the plea rather he had to admit the execution of the rent note and also re-construction of the shop in the year 1990. Even a perusal of the rent note shows that it is specifically mentioned therein that the shop was re-constructed in the year 1990. As against this, the other evidence led by the appellant/defendant to claim that in fact he was tenant in the shop in question for the last 20 years could not be believed as he could not link that he was in possession of the same shop. Even R. S. A. No. 3979 of 2008 (3) otherwise once after reconstruction a fresh rent note was executed between the parties, the terms and conditions therein would bind them and the respondents will certainly be entitled to enforce the rights arising out of that rent note. The learned courts below have correctly appreciated evidence led by the parties by discussing the same threadbare and also referring to the judgments of this court on the issues. Learned counsel for the appellant did not submit that judgments relied upon by the learned court below are either not good law or not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, while concurring with the findings recorded by the courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. 5.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge