RSA No.2975 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.8816-17-C of 2009 & RSA No.2975 of 2009 Decided on : 12.01.2010 Nanak Chand ... Appellant versus Shakal Panchayat Dharamshala Khatikan, Jind & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. S.K.Verma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.8816-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 41 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.8817-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 12 days in filling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2975 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the RSA No.2975 of 2009 -2- appellant for mandatory injunction directing the respondents No.1 to 8 to restore the possession of a shop which was allegedly let out to the appellant. Both the courts below have considered that despite the fact that respondent No.1 is body of persons viz Shakal Panchayat Dharamshala Khatikan, no agreement for rent was ever produced by the appellant. No receipt of rent has also been produced by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the affidavit sworn by the respondent No.1 in which it was mentioned that the appellant was a tenant of one of the shop in support of his plea that the case of the appellant was duly proved. Both the Courts below have noticed that in this affidavit the words 'appellant was a tenant @ Rs.450/- per month' were subsequent addition. Consequently, holding that the appellant has not been able to prove as a fact that he was a tenant, the suit was dismissed. The following questions of law has been proposed: i) Whether as per the documentary evidence i.e. affidavit mark 'D' and 'PA' sworn by the defendant/respondent shows that shop in question was let out to the appellant on rent for a monthly rent of Rs.450/- per month. ii)Whether the affidavit mark 'D' and 'PA' tendered by the plaintiff-appellant in evidence is not admissible in evidence? As regards question No.(i), same is pure question of RSA No.2975 of 2009 -3- fact. As regards question No.(ii), it has to be noticed that even after considering these two documents, the appellant is not in a position to establish his case. Consequently, question No.(ii) is rendered unnecessary. Holding these proposed questions against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. January 12, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE