Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 2007 Date of decision: 17.07.2009 1. Smt. Ram Piari widow of Balwant Singh, 2- Gurdev Singh son of Balwant Singh son of Milkha Singh, both residents of H.No. NA-366, Mohalla Kishanpura, Jalandhar. ..... Appellants. Versus 1. Sucha Singh son of Amar Singh, 2- Tarlochan Singh, 3- Nardeep Singh, 4- Amarjit Singh, sons of Sarup Singh, r/o Mohalla Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:-Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2007, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 2 (Adhoc), Jalandhar, vide which it accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit for permanent injunction, filed by the plaintiffs, against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. 2. The facts, in brief, are that house no.NA-366, as shown red, in the site plan, was originally owned and possessed by Amar Singh, father of defendant no.1, who rented out the same, near about the year 1950-51 to Balwant Singh son of Milkha Singh, husband of plaintiff no.1 and father of plaintiff no.2 at the rate of Rs.11/- per month, and he had been realizing the same, from him (Balwant Singh). It was stated that, lateron with mutual consent, the rate of rent of the house, in question, was enhanced, from Rs.11/- to Rs.22/- per month. Amar Singh had been collecting the rent from Balwant Singh. After the death of Balwant Singh, the plaintiffs continued paying the rent to the landlord, at the same rate, as was earlier agreed to. It was further stated that the landlord issued receipts in favour of Balwant Singh. It was further stated that Amar Singh, after Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 3 his death, left behind his two sons namely Sucha Singh and Surinder Singh @ Sardara Singh, who were residing abroad. Surinder Singh alias Sardara Singh also died in Africa, whereas, Sucha Singh was residing in England and he casually visited India. It was further stated that Surinder Singh alias Sardara Singh, on his visit to India, had received rent from the plaintiffs amounting to Rs.3278/- @ Rs.22/- per month from August 1968, to December 1980 and executed a valid receipt, in their favour after receiving the same from them. It was further stated that Amar Singh, filed ejectment petition against Balwant Singh, in the year 1968 and in that petition, Balwant Singh, father of the plaintiff, had also tendered rent in the Court on 30.04.1968 @ Rs.22/- per month. It was further stated that the defendants colluded with anti- social elements, and intended to dispossess the plaintiffs, forcibly and illegally, from the property, in dispute. It was further stated that they were asked, many a time, not to do so, but to no avail. On their final refusal, to desist from their illegal designs, left with no alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed. Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 4 3. The defendants, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing their joint written statement. They pleaded therein that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. It was stated that defendant no.1 executed a gift deed in favour of Ram Garhia Model School, Santokhpura, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar, through Jathedar S. Gurdev Singh, its President and the same was duly registered with the Registrar's office, vide endorsement no.1143 dated 1.1.1999. It was admitted that the property, in dispute, was owned by Amar Singh son of Suba Singh, father of defendant no.1. It was further stated that Amar Singh, executed a registered Will, in favour of defendant no.1 and his brother Surinder Singh on 07.07.1972. It was further stated that Balwant Singh,was never inducted as a tenant, in any portion of the property, in dispute. It was further stated that, as such, the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of Balwant Singh, did not become the tenants in the property, in dispute. It was further stated that since the property, in dispute, had been bequeathed, in favour of Ramgarhia Model Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 5 School, it was in possession thereof. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were framed, by the trial Court:- “1- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for ?OPP 2- Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 3- Whether the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property ?OPD 4- Relief.” 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. The trial Court, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the defendants/appellants, which was accepted by the Court of Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar, vide its judgment and decree dated 22.03.2007. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 6 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion, that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property, in dispute, being the legal heirs of Balwant Singh, as tenants (now defendants/respondents). He further submitted that the appellate Court, just acted on conjectures and surmises, in coming to the conclusion, that the plaintiffs/appellants were not in possession of the property, in dispute, nor they were inducted as tenants. He further submitted that Surinder Singh, one of the sons of Amar Singh, the original landlord, has since demised. He further submitted that Sukhraj Singh Suri son of Surinder Singh Suri, deceased, has already filed a petition, under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, admitting the plaintiffs/appellants, as tenants, therein. He further submitted that, on the basis of this petition also, it was proved that the Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 7 plaintiffs/appellants were in possession of the property, in dispute, as legal representatives of Balwant Singh, deceased. He further submitted that the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that alongwith the copy of petition, under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949), Annexure P-4, filed by Sukhraj Singh Suri son of late Shri Surinder Singh Suri, which has been placed, on record, by the Counsel for the appellants, an application, (Annexure A-5), seeking permission to contest that petition, has also been submitted. He further submitted that as per para no.2(i) of the application, (Annexure A-5), the plaintiffs/ appellants stated that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, to the petition. He further submitted that, in view of the admission made by the plaintiffs/appellants, in the application, (Annexure A-5) that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, between the parties, their claim regarding tenancy was completely falsified. He further submitted that the Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 8 Appellate Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property, in dispute, in any capacity, what to speak of tenants. He further submitted that the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, being legal and valid, is liable to be up held. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in Regular Second Appeal, cannot interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, even if the same are erroneous. This Court in Regular Second Appeal, can only interfere into the judgment and decree of the Courts below, if it finds that substantial question of law, arises in the same. The perusal of the judgment of the Court of Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar clearly goes to show that after due appraisal and appreciation of the evidence, produced by the parties, it came to the conclusion that the Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 9 plaintiffs were not in possession of the property, in dispute, much less as tenants. Not only this, as stated above, the appellants placed on record Annexure A-4, (copy of the petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949,) filed by Sukhraj Singh son of Surinder Singh Suri, one of the co-landlords of the property, in dispute. Alongwith this application, they also moved an application (Annexure A-5), for permission to contest the petition, filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. Para no.2 (i) of the application, (Annexure A-5) for permission to contest the petition, reads as under:- “2(i) that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the present petition. The applicants had neither taken the permisses from the petitioner on rent nor ever have paid any rent nor attorned him as their landlord, qua the property in question.” 12. This admission, on the part of the appellants, clearly falsified their claim regarding Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2007 10 their tenancy in respect of the property, in dispute. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court that the plaintiffs/appellants never came into possession, as tenants of the property in dispute, which fact was duly supported by their admission, referred to above; and as such they were not entitled to the injunction, prayed for, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and, law on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and, as such, warrant no interference. The judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 14. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed with costs. ( Sham Sunder ) July 17, 2009 Judge dinesh