RSA No.103 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 103 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2011 Hardeep Kumar .....Appellant Versus N.C.Paul .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was a tenant qua the shop in dispute and was running his business in the said shop for the last twelve years. The rate of rent was ` 350/- per month. A licence had been issued by the Municipal Corporation in favour of the plaintiff to run the shop in dispute. Plaintiff was regularly paying the electricity bills upto date. Plaintiff had also been depositing house tax qua the shop in dispute. Defendant had filed an application against the plaintiff before the Senior Superintendent of Police and a compromise was effected between the parties. Now, the defendant RSA No.103 of 2011(O&M) 2 had failed to accept the rent. Plaintiff had sent ` 700/- towards rent for two months i.e. March and April, 1999 by way of money order. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that the plaintiff had only been employed as a servant by the defendant for management of the business of photography and was being paid ` 1000/- as salary. On 28.4.1994, plaintiff was paid salary to the tune of ` 12,000/- for one year. An agreement in this regard was executed between the parties. Defendant went to United Kingdom in the month of March 1999, and on his return, plaintiff handed over the keys of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff but failed to render the accounts. Plaintiff along with his family members and 40/50 other persons broke open the shutter of the shed and removed costly items from the shop. The matter was reported to the police and signature of the defendant were taken on some blank papers. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the shop in dispute?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts?OPD 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 5.Relief.” The Civil Judge, Junior Division dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2009. The appeal filed by the RSA No.103 of 2011(O&M) 3 plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that he had taken the shop in dispute on rent from the defendant. However, the plaintiff failed to establish any rent note executed between the parties. Plaintiff also failed to establish any rent receipt with regard to payment of rent to establish his plea of tenancy. It has also transpired, during the course of arguments, that the defendant has already filed the suit for possession. Thus, the defendant has taken recourse to law to get back the possession of the shop in dispute. Plaintiff had failed to establish his case, and both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 03, 2011 arya