RSA No.537 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.537 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: February 01, 2011. Om Parkash . .. Appellant VERSUS Babu Lal and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiffs-respondents has been decreed by the Courts below holding that the plaintiffs-respondents have inherited tenancy in the shop which is claimed by the defendant- appellant to be in his exclusive possession. Counsel for the defendant-appellant has contended . . . 1 RSA No.537 of 2011 (O&M) that on the basis of a family settlement entered into between the members of the family on 22.07.1997, the tenancy rights in the shop have been given exclusively to the defendant-appellant. I have considered the said contention and I am of the opinion that family settlement has not been proved on the record. Even otherwise, an attempt was made to place the said document on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the lower appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court has observed that there is no evidence even as per the family settlement that the tenancy rights were given up by the plaintiffs-respondents and other brothers. In view of concurrent finding of fact regarding joint tenancy, no interference is called for in second appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. The apprehension of the counsel for the defendant- appellant that on the basis of declaration obtained by the plaintiffs- respondents, there is apprehension that an attempt would be made by the plaintiffs-respondents to prejudice the tenancy rights of the defendant-appellant. The said apprehension is misconceived. It will be open to the defendant-appellant to protect his possession/exclusive possession (as claimed) by adverting to any legal remedy available to him, in accordance with law. Dismissed with above observation. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 01, 2011. rka . . . 2 RSA No.537 of 2011 (O&M) . . . 3