RSA No. 108 of 2010. 15.6.2011 Present: Mr. N.K.Sood, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Anand Sharma, counsel for the respondent. The controversy between the parties is very short. The appellant is aggrieved on the ground that the Courts below have held that lease deed Ex. DW3/A is not genuine. There is no dispute between the parties that the lease deed Ex. DW3/A has been executed in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that in view of the decree passed by two Courts below, the appellant will not interfere in the possession of the respondent on the suit land on the basis of lease deed Ex.DW3/A. The learned counsel for the respondent has also not denied the execution of lease deed Ex. DW3/A in favour of appellant, but he has submitted that appellant has no right to interfere in the possession of the respondent on the basis of lease deed Ex. DW3/A. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent is in possession of the suit land. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, no further order is required save and except that the appellant shall be entitled to take the benefit of lease deed Ex. DW3/A but he shall not interfere in the ownership and possession of the respondent on the suit land. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Interim order dated 25.03.2010 shall stand vacated and CMP No. 190 of 2010 shall stand disposed of. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. June 15, 2011. (sks)