RSA No.2306 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - . IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2306 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 23.05.2011 Surinder Kumar ……Appellant Versus Shiba Ram and another …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. S. K. Panwar, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.6369-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Main appeal. Surinder Kumar-defendant, having lost in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiffs/respondents-Shiba Ram and Rasali son and daughter respectively of Ballu filed suit to pre-empt sale of 3 kanals 3 marlas land made to defendant-appellant vide sale deed dated 11.03.2005 on the ground that plaintiffs being tenants over the suit land have preferential right of pre-emption. Vendee-defendant- appellant denied the plea of tenancy raised by the plaintiffs. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2010 decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. RSA No.2306 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Entries in jamabandis and khasra girdwaris depict that plaintiffs are tenants over the suit land. The said entries have not been rebutted by the defendant-appellant. On the contrary, the defendant-appellant himself admitted in cross-examination that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as Mujaras (tenants) and they are cultivating the same as such till date. Defendant admitted that plaintiffs are still in possession of the suit land as tenants. Defendant also admitted that he never remained tenant on the suit land nor he remained in possession thereof. He is running a shop. In view of these admissions made by the defendant himself, coupled with documentary evidence in favour of the plaintiffs, nothing survives for adjudication in the instant second appeal. It is amply proved by overwhelming evidence on record that plaintiffs are tenants over the suit land and, therefore, have superior right of pre-emption and consequently, their pre-emption suit has been rightly decreed by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Pala Ram PW-1 son of plaintiff No.1 admitted that they had not paid any batai to any body till date. However, mere non payment of RSA No.2306 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - batai or rent does not extinguish the tenancy because landlord has right to recover the same. Pala Ram also purchased some share in the joint land in question. However, the same would have no effect on pre-emption of the suit land which has been purchased by defendant-appellant and on which plaintiffs are admittedly tenants. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs is fully justified by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence in any manner. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and frivolous and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 23.05.2011. A.kaundal