Regular Second Appeal No. 4319 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4319 of 2009 Date of decision : February 22, 2010 Harjinder Singh ....Appellant versus Jagjit Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ashok Aneja, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by defendant Harjinder Singh who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondents filed suit for possession of the disputed shop by way of ejectment of the defendant-appellant therefrom and also for recovery of Rs 6000/- as rent/mesne profits of the said shop from January,1998 to December, 1998. Plaintiffs alleged that the disputed shop was owned by Prem Singh who let out the same to the defendant on rent of Rs 500/- per month. Rent note was duly executed by defendant-appellant in favour of Prem Singh on 1.4.1997. Prem Singh sold the disputed shop along with some other property to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed. The defendant failed to pay arrears of rent/mesne profits to the plaintiffs from January, Regular Second Appeal No. 4319 of 2009 -2- 1998 onwards. Defendant's tenancy was terminated by serving notice dated 10.6.1998 but the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent and also failed to vacate the disputed shop. Defendant alleged that Prem Singh, Avtar Kaur and Gurnek Singh are co-sharers in equal shares in the land on which they constructed six shops including the disputed shop in or about the year 1995. All the three owners jointly rented out all the shops on monthly rent of Rs 400/- per shop. Since then, the defendant and other tenants are paying rent at the rate of Rs 400/- per month to the aforesaid landlords. The plaintiffs obtained signatures of defendant on blank rent note in police station alleging that the plaintiffs have purchased the disputed shop and other land from Prem Singh. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Zira vide judgment and decree dated 9.8.2008 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the disputed shop by way of ejectment of defendant-appellant therefrom and also for recovery of Rs 6000/- as rent/mesne profits. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 4.5.2009. Feeling still aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. It is the admitted case of the appellant-defendant himself that he has taken the disputed shop on rent from Prem Singh, Avtar Kaur and Gurnek Singh. However, rent note executed by the defendant in favour of Prem Singh alone has been proved. The plaintiffs have purchased the disputed shop from Prem Singh. Consequently, the plaintiffs have become Regular Second Appeal No. 4319 of 2009 -3- landlords in place of Prem Singh who was sole landlord as per rent note in his favour. However, even assuming that the defendant was tenant under Prem Singh, Avtar Kaur and Gurnek Singh jointly even then one of the landlords or his successor-in-interest can maintain suit for ejectment of tenant from the demised property. Tenancy of the defendant was terminated by serving notice. The defendant is, therefore, liable to vacate the disputed shop when admittedly provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are not applicable to the disputed shop which is situated in a village and not in urban area. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Gurnek Singh and Avtar Kaur have not been joined as party in the instant suit although they were co-sharers in the disputed shop. However, this contention cannot be accepted because as noticed hereinabove, even one of the landlords can maintain suit for ejectment of tenant from the demised property. Moreover, rent note was executed by defendant in favour of Prem Singh alone. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that Gurnek Singh and Avtar Kaur have filed suit challenging sale of disputed shop and other property by Prem Singh in favour of plaintiffs being allegedly in excess of share of Prem Singh. However, the appellant cannot take advantage of this contention because admittedly Prem Singh as per version of the appellant-defendant himself had at least 1/3rd share in the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that shop was not mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiffs and only land was mentioned. However, from the judgments of the courts below, it appears that no such plea has even been taken either in the written statement or during arguments Regular Second Appeal No. 4319 of 2009 -4- before the courts below. There is also no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid contention. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no infirmity or illegality in the judgments of the courts below. No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is found to be without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) February 22, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'