IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 565 of 2010. Date of decision: 20.5.2011. Rajesh Kapil ….. Appellant. Vs. Gopal …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This appeal has been directed against the judgement dated 8.4.2010 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi, camp at Karsog in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2008 affirming the judgement, decree dated30.4.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karsog in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2007. 2. The respondent- plaintiff had filed a suit for arrears of rent and possession of shop No. 3, measuring 25 x 13 feet situated on khasra No. 288 in the ground floor. The appellant-defendant contested the suit, he took the plea that earlier he was tenant in shop No. 2, but on the request of the respondent-plaintiff, he shifted to shop No. 3, he spent about Rs.50,000/- on the renovation of shop No. 3. The rent of shop No. 2 was Rs.500/- and tenancy of that shop was for twenty years. The appellant has further contended that in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… these circumstances, he is entitled to retain the possession of shop No. 3 at-least for twenty years. He shifted in shop No. 3 in the year 2006. The suit has been filed for enhancing the rent. The appellant has denied that Rs.1000/- per month was the rent of shop No. 3. The appellant has pleaded that no notice was served upon him. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same line of reasoning as taken by the appellant in the courts below. I have gone through both the judgement of the courts below and the points raised in the appeal. 4. The two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that respondent is entitled to a decree of possession of shop measuring 25 x 13 feet situated on land bearing khasra No. 288 in ground floor at place Tattapani, Tehsil Karsog. The two courts below have also recorded a finding that respondent is entitled to arrears of rent, use and occupation charges amounting to Rs.14,000/- from the appellant as claimed in the suit alongwith use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from 28.2.2007. The appellant failed to vacate the shop after termination of tenancy. The learned Addl. District Judge has recorded the finding that use and occupation charges claimed are justifiable. The tenancy stands terminated in accordance with law. The other contentions of the appellant were rejected. 5. The two courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. No substantial question of law emerges from the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The re-appreciation of evidence in second appeal is not permissible. …3… There is no merit in the appeal, resultantly, the same is dismissed, so also CMP Nos 1154 and 1155 of 2010. May 20, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.