IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3333 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.10.2008 Umesh Kumar ...Appellant. Versus Ashok Kumar ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by the defendant arises from the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2008 passed by the first appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 2.2.2005 whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for possession, was decreed. The factual back-drop leading to the present round of litigation would reveal that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a shop situated in Mohalla Pranpura, Narnaul, fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. It was pleaded that the shop was let out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.800/- vide rent note dated 12.7.1994 for a period of three months. The period of tenancy had expired and still the defendant was in possession of the same. It was further pleaded that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1991 after getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, Narnaul R.S.A. No. 3333 of 2008 -2- and therefore, the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”) were not applicable. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had caused a nuisance by putting a tin shed in front of the shop without his consent. It was also pleaded that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated w.e.f. 12.12.1999 by serving a legal notice dated 19.11.1999 under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act but despite that the possession of the shop was not handed over the plaintiff. Besides the relief of possession of the shop, the plaintiff also prayed for compensation for use and occupation of the shop at the rate of 800/- per month w.e.f. 13.12.1999. To controvert the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded the shop was taken on rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month but it was denied that the tenancy was only for a period of three months. It was further pleaded that the tin shed was put with the consent of the plaintiff and the remaining tenants of the plaintiff had also put the tin shed in front of their respective shops. According to the defendant, the shop in dispute was constructed about 15 years back and as no permission to raise construction from the Municipal Committee was obtained, therefore, the provisions of the Rent Act were applicable. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties held that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1991. It was further held that the shop in question was rented out to the defendant for a period of three months vide rent note dated 12.7.1994 and his tenancy stand terminated w.e.f. R.S.A. No. 3333 of 2008 -3- 12.12.1999. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2005. Upon appeal, the first appellate court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 20.9.2008. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than that of the courts below but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any misreading or misappreciation of the evidence which may warrant interference by this court in the regular second appeal. An unambiguous admission was made by the defendant in the rent deed, Ex.P3, regarding the year of construction of the shop in dispute and the said fact further found support from the sanctioned site plan, Ex.PW2/B, on the basis of which the courts below had recorded a concurrent finding that the provisions of Rent Act did not apply to the shop in dispute. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. October 23, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE