RSA No.47 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.47 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.01.2010. Dinesh Kumar .……Appellant Versus The Delhi Pinjra Pole Society, Delhi and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Dinesh Kumar legal representative of defendant No.1 since deceased has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The Delhi Pinjra Pole Society, Delhi-respondent No.1 filed suit for possession of suit land against appellant and proforma respondent No.2 alleging that the plaintiff is owner of the suit land which was given to the defendants as licensees to make the suit land cultivable with the condition that control and management of the land shall remain with the plaintiff. No licence fee was fixed. The defendants have been enjoying the fruits of the suit land without payment of any licence fee to the plaintiff. The plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendants vide notice dated 30.10.2004, but the defendants failed to deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 was proceeded ex parte. Defendant RSA No.47 of 2010 -2- No.1-appellant contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the defendants are in possession of the suit land as tenants. The suit land was Banjar and was made cultivable by the defendants. It was denied that the defendants were licensees of the plaintiff on the suit land. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.2009, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by both the defendants stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.1 alone. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The controversy is regarding interpretation of entry in jamabandi. In column of occupants, the defendants have been mentioned as occupants as 'Gair Morusee'. In column No.9 relating to rent, the entry is 'Bashairah Malkan Bavajah Notor'. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the aforesaid entries would show that the defendants were in possession of the suit land in the same capacity as owners and the defendants were paying the land revenue which would be treated as rent. This contention cannot be accepted. Entry of 'Gair Morusee', is made by patwaris whenever the capacity of the occupant is not known. In the instant case, both parties have alleged that the suit land was given by the plaintiff to the defendants for reclamation and the defendants accordingly reclaimed the suit land and made it cultivable. However, RSA No.47 of 2010 -3- admittedly the defendants had never paid any rent to the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to depict that relationship of landlord and tenant was ever created between the parties. Tenancy is bilateral contract whereunder rent is payable by the tenant to the landlord. In the instant case, however, no rent was agreed to be paid between the parties nor any rent was ever paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. Consequently, it is manifest that the defendants have miserably failed to prove that they occupy the suit land as tenants. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the defendants were not proved to be licensees of the plaintiff over the suit land. . The contention cannot be accepted because if the suit land was given by the plaintiff to the defendants for reclamation and for cultivating the same without payment of rent, obviously the defendants occupied the suit land as licensees of the plaintiff. The concurrent finding by both the Courts below is based on appreciation of evidence. The same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 13.01.2010 A. Kaundal