RSA No. 3060 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3060 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.8.2009 Saian Dass and another ......Appellants Versus Subhash Sharma and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby their suit for injunction restraining the defendants from using the roof of a shop in their possession as tenants, was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellants claimed that they are tenants of the shop in question for last 30 years and are using the roof of the said shop since then. The plaintiffs sought injunction against their forcible dispossession from the shop in dispute. The learned trial Court restrained the defendants from ejecting the plaintiffs forcibly, except in due course of law. However, the relief regarding the roof was declined. Such decree has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that RSA No. 3060 of 2009 (2) the plaintiff-appellants have a right to use the roof of the tenanted shop in dispute as the roof is also part of the building. It has been found by the learned first Appellate Court that there are no stairs for access to the roof of the shop and it is only the ground floor, which was let out to the plaintiffs. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that on the basis of evidence on record, the roof is not part of the tenanted premises. Such finding of fact has been arrived on the basis of appreciation of evidence. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 19.8.2009 ds