1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 419 of 2009 (O&M). Date of Decision: 22.1.2009 *** Gurbachan Singh .. Appellant VS. Nika Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay of 19 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. Through the instant regular second appeal a challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2008 passed by the first appellate Court below by dint of which the judgment dated 9.10.2006 passed by learned trial Court has been modified. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit against the defendant- appellant on the ground that they are in possession of the suit property as Gair Marusi tenant on payment of 1/3rd of produce and the defendant wants to forcibly dispossess him therefrom. The stand of the defendant, on the other hand, was that the plaintiffs are not making the payment of Batai to him and as such they have lost the status of tenant and are trespassers thereupon and thus, liable to be ejected from the suit property. The learned trial court, finding the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land as illegal, since they did not make the payment of rent, refused to grant them injunction against the defendant, the true owner and accordingly dismissed the suit. In other words, the learned trial Court on the basis of revenue record produced by the parties, concluded that the plaintiffs were tenants over the suit property and considering their status as such the learned First Appellate Court rightly modified the judgment of the learned 2 Trial Court by concluding that for recovery of rent from the plaintiffs, the defendant can avail appropriate remedy permissible under law and being the tenants and not the trespassers, the plaintiffs can be ejected from the suit land only in due course of law. There is no illegality or perversity in the approach adopted by the learned First Appellate Court. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 22,2009 Jiten