RSA No.1188 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1188 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: December 15, 2011 Pritam Singh .....Appellant v. Pawan Jalan and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3575-C of 2010 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.1188 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 4.8.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Bhiwani, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant no.1 against judgment and decree dated 23.8.2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, partly decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery against present appellant-defendant and respondent no.2-defendant on the RSA No.1188 of 2010(O&M) -2- ground that he is owner in possession of the shop in dispute, which was rented out to present appellant-defendant no.1, vide rent note dated 8.9.1997 on monthly rent of `1250/- and respondent-defendant no.2 stood surety for repayment of the rent by appellant-defendant no.1. Further plea of respondent-plaintiff is that appellant-defendant no.1 is in arrears of rent for the period from 1.3.1999 to 31.12.2001 and that total rent comes to `42,500/-. On notice being issued, present appellant-defendant had taken the plea that though he had taken the shop on rent vide rent note dated 8.9.1997 on rent of `1250/- and respondent-defendant no.2 stood surety for payment of rent, however, plea has been taken that after expiry of period of 11 months, as mentioned in rent note, he vacated the shop in dispute and handed over the possession to respondent-plaintiff. On appreciation of evidence adduced by learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by respondent- plaintiff for rent from May 1999 till 31.12.2001. Plea of present appellant- defendant no.1 that the shop was vacated by him after 11 months of the execution of the rent note was not accepted by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by present appellant-defendant no.1 against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Bhiwani. It has been contended by learned counsel for appellant- defendant no.1 that there is statement of appellant-defendant no.1 as well as of his father that appellant has already vacated the shop. It is also contended that appellant-defendant is still to pay instalments of loan taken from the bank as he has already vacated the shop. However, plea has been RSA No.1188 of 2010(O&M) -3- rightly discarded by both the Courts below. Admittedly, petitioner- defendant no.1 came in possession of the shop in dispute as tenant vide rent note Ex.P1. He has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that possession of shop in dispute was handed over by him to respondent- plaintiff-landlord after expiry of period of 11 months of the execution of the rent note. He had taken the shop for running the business. Even no accounts books of the shop were produced to show that the same was closed after 11 months of taking the same on rent. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 15.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge