RSA No.4143 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4143 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:09.11.2010. Ramesh Kumar Kamra ...Appellant Versus Sita Ram ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of redemption, has been decreed. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he had mortgaged the disputed shop to the defendant by way of a registered mortgage deed dated 28.05.2002 against a consideration of `25,000/-. When the plaintiff offered the mortgage money for the purpose of redemption on 30.09.2005, the mortgagee/defendant flatly refused, which led to the filing of the suit. In the written statement, the defendant denied the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee, rather he has claimed his relationship of the landlord and tenant with the plaintiff. It was alleged that the mortgage deed was executed in good faith, otherwise the plaintiff, who was owner in possession of the old house bearing Municipal Unit No.X-750 which was in a dilapidated condition, wanted to refurbish the said house and make provision for one commercial shop. The defendant, who intended to take the shop on rent, gave `65,000/- to the plaintiff on different dates, otherwise he has been occupying the shop in dispute @ `1,500/- per month as a tenant which is being deducted from `65,000/- already paid. It was also RSA No.4143 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** alleged that due to cordial relations between the parties no rent receipt was ever issued. The learned Courts below, did not believe the case set up by the defendant for the reason that he could not prove the payment of rent. The cheques Ex.D2 to Ex.D10 were self-cheques which were not found to be paid towards the rent. The Courts below have found that the mortgage deed is a registered document, in the absence of any evidence much-less the rent deed and evidence of payment of rent, the learned Courts below concurrently recorded a finding that the relationship between the parties was of mortgagor and mortgagee and not of the landlord and tenant. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the present appeal has been preferred in which no substantial question of law is involved as neither rent deed nor amount of payment of rent is proved, rather the defendant has categorically admitted the execution of mortgage deed but he has failed to prove any fraud having been played upon him. In the absence of any substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court cannot interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Thus, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and hence, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. November 09, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE