IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.3922 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.2.2010 S.Amarjit Singh. ....... Appellant. Versus Sh.R.C.Yadav. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 14.2.2007 and 2.5.2008 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') and the District Judge, Amritsar (described hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the appeal of the defendant-appellant was dismissed. The respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the appellant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the demised premises. R.S.A.No.3922 of 2008 (O&M) -2- .... Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed his written statement contesting the suit. It was pleaded that Firm – M/S Twenty First Century Computer India Limited was a tenant under Sarbjit Singh Bajaj over the property in dispute and the respondent, in his personal capacity, had no concern with the same. It was further pleaded that the said firm was in arrears of rent and had also made material additions and alterations in the demised premises. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is maintainable?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the facts?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit?OPP 6. Relief. The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence on record, decreed the suit and restrained the appellant from interfering into the possession of the respondent over the suit property illegally, forcibly and without due process of law. On appeal, the first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court, which has resulted in the filing of the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the R.S.A.No.3922 of 2008 (O&M) -3- .... findings of the Courts below are perverse, incorrect and are, therefore, liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. The factum of possession of the respondent over the disputed premises is not disputed. Whether he is a tenant or a trespasser, in both the eventualities, he is entitled to the protection of law as it is a settled proposition that no body can be evicted except in due process of law which is the only substantial relief granted by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court and the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. All pending civil miscellaneous applications are also dismissed in view of the above. February 2,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge