IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1314 of 2003 Date of Decision: 20.10. 2008 Harphool and others .....Appellants Versus Smt.Shanti Devi and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This is an appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below refusing the status of occupancy tenant (and thereby ownership) to the plaintiff-appellants. It has been found as a fact that the appellants have not been able to prove that there was an intention never to evict them at the inception of tenancy. It has further been found as a fact that the appellants were tenants upon 1/4th batai which cannot be termed as nominal rent by any standards. Reliance on the judgment of Bahadur Singh and others v. Shangara Singh and others reported as 1995 PLJ 257 is also misplaced RSA No. 1314 of 2003 -2- since in that judgment it was held that mere continuance of payment of rent after the appointed date i.e. 15.6.1952 would not estop a tenant from claiming the right of occupancy tenant. In the instant case no such estoppel has been held against the appellants; rather as noticed above, on appreciation of evidence the Courts have found that the appellants have not been able to establish their plea of being occupancy tenants. In this view of the matter no question of law arises in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 20, 2008 sunita