RSA No.2124 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2124 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.8.2009 M/s Baldev Singh and Company ......Appellant Versus Zila Parishad .......Respondent 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 Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Shri Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 20.11.2007, whereby a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property, was dismissed. As per the facts on record, the plaintiff was inducted as a lessee vide lease deed dated 19.7.1995 Exhibit P.1. Such sale deed was cancelled by the Administrator, Zila Parishad on 11.4.2003 as it was found that the plaintiff has encroached upon the land. It was thus found that the plaintiff has violated the terms and conditions of lease. Though, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the RSA No.2124 of 2008 (2) plaintiff, but learned first Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the defendant. It was, found that the plaintiff has not challenged the order of cancellation of lease and that since the relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties ceases to exist after the cancellation of lease deed, the plaintiff has no legal right to continue in the property and that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction. The plaintiff has filed the suit after the order of cancellation of lease was passed by the Administrator. Such order was not made subject matter of challenge in the suit or before any other authority. In view of the said order, the appellant cannot be said to be in legal possession of the suit property. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28.8.2009 ds