R. S. A. No. 543 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 543 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 31, 2011 Rajender and others .... Appellants Vs. Chotte Lal .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. R. S. A. No. 543 of 2011 titled Rajender and others vs. Chhote Lal and R. S. A. No. 550 of 2011 titled Rajender and others vs. Chhote Lal and another. R. S. A. No. 550 of 2011 is arising out of Civil Suit No.281 of 1999 instituted by the appellants herein against Chhote Lal- respondent no.1 as defendant no.1 and Smt. Buli as proforma defendant no.2. R. S. A. No. 543 of 2011 is arising out of Civil Suit No.319 of 2000 instituted by Chhote Lal-respondent against the appellants herein. The trial court disposed of both the suits by common judgment. Lower appellate R. S. A. No. 543 of 2011 2 court also disposed of both the first appeals by common judgment. These two second appeals are also being disposed of by common judgment. Appellants in their suit alleged that plaintiffs and their sister Buli-proforma defendant no.2 are owners in possession of 09 kanals 19 marlas land, out of which they sold one kanal land to one Rameshwari. Out of the remaining land, they have raised some construction. About 7-8 years before filing of the suit, defendant no.1 approached the plaintiffs and proforma defendant no.2 for giving some portion of their house on rent because house of defendant no.1 had been damaged due to heavy rain and was not fit for human habitation. Accordingly, suit property, which is western portion of house of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant no.2, was given on rent to defendant no.1, who agreed to vacate the same after reconstructing/repairing his own house very soon. However, defendant no.1 did not vacate the suit property. Tenancy of defendant no.1 was terminated by serving notice. Plaintiffs accordingly sought possession of the suit property by ejectment of defendant no.1 therefrom. Defendant no.1 claimed to be owner of 02 kanals land out of 09 kanals 19 marlas land in question having purchased it from Rajender – plaintiff-appellant no.1 in December 1981. Defendant no.1 constructed his house thereon and is owner in possession thereof since then. Subsequently, defendant no.1 also purchased passage for his said house from one Sheo Chand vide sale deed dated 30.07.1999. Other averments of plaintiffs were R. S. A. No. 543 of 2011 3 controverted. Chhote Lal – respondent, in his suit, sought permanent injunction alleging that he is owner in possession of his aforesaid house and there is house of appellants (defendants in the said suit) towards East of the house of respondent Chhote Lal. Chhote Lal sought permanent injunction restraining the appellants from placing girders etc. on the Eastern wall of his house and from raising any construction on the said wall. Appellants herein resisted the said claim of respondent Chhote Lal by reiterating their version that they are owners of the suit property. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide common judgment and decrees dated 12.04.2008, dismissed the suit filed by the appellants and decreed the suit filed by respondent Chhote Lal. First appeals preferred by appellants herein in both the suits have been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide common judgment and decrees dated 11.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, instant second appeals have been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Appellants have miserably failed to prove that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Said relationship was the basis of suit of the appellants to seek possession of the suit property by ejectment of defendant no.1 Chhote Lal therefrom. Since relationship of R. S. A. No. 543 of 2011 4 landlord and tenant between the parties was not proved, suit filed by the appellants herein has been rightly dismissed. There is no documentary evidence regarding alleged tenancy of Chhote Lal. There is also no cogent oral evidence regarding alleged tenancy. Oral evidence of the appellants has been rebutted by oral evidence of Chhote Lal. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not proved is fully justified by the evidence on record and is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. As regards suit filed by Chhote Lal – respondent, admittedly he is in possession of the suit property. Consequently, appellants have no right to raise any construction on Eastern wall of the house of Chhote Lal. Suit of Chhote Lal has, therefore, been rightly decreed by the courts below. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in these second appeals. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in these second appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed in limine. May 31, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE