Regular Second Appeal No. 2047 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2047 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.5.2009 *** Satish Kumar .. Appellant VS. Hussan Lal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendant's regular second appeal. He has lost concurrently in a suit for injunction and recovery filed by plaintiff- respondent and has been directed to remove his belongings from the front of cabin/ garage No.4, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh and not to place the same at night and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month as damages from 26.9.2001 onwards along with interest @ 6% per annum. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. It emerges out from the records that there is no dispute as to the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the property in dispute. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant was given oral licence by the plaintiff to place his belongings during the night time while according to the defendant the suit property was rented out to him on monthly rent of Rs.500/- in the year 1992, which kept on increasing from time to time and ultimately comes to Rs.2000/- per month. It emerges out from the records that the defendant utterly failed to substantiate his plea of being tenant on the suit property. The defendant admittedly was a tax payee, but no proof with regard to payment of rent to the plaintiff was produced by him and hence it was concurrently held that the defendant was only a licencee and not a tenant in respect of the suit property. The defendant has also not disputed the issuance of notice dated 26.9.2001(Ex.P1) by the plaintiff as also his Regular Second Appeal No. 2047 of 2009 2 possession over the suit property till date. Thus, it has been concurrently held that after revocation of licence vide notice Ex.P1, the status of the appellant was that only of a trespasser and for that he is liable to pay the damages to the tune of his admitted amount i.e. Rs.2000/- per month. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than the one recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 18,2009 Jiten