RSA No. 3148 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3148 of 2007 Date of Decision: 12.10.09 Gurdip Singh 45 years son of Mohinder Singh, shop No. 42, Chak No. 7, Saini Bar High School, Bullowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. ... Appellant Versus Saini Bar High School Bullowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, through its Managing Committee, through Ajwinder Singh and Gurminder Pal Singh, its President and Secretary. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Ompal Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 29.04.03, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and the judgment and decree, dated 21.04.07, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the plaintiff, was the owner in possession of the property, in dispute. The defendant, was inducted as RSA No. 3148 of 2007 2 a tenant, in the suit property, at a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-. The defendant, being a chronic defaulter, did not pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. December, 1992, despite repeated requests. A notice, in this regard, was also served upon the defendant, but he refused to accept the same, as a result whereof, his tenancy, in respect of the demised premises, stood terminated. The defendant, was many a time, asked to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the premises, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for possession, by way of eviction, and recovery, was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, it took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff, was estopped, by its act and conduct, from filing the suit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, had no locus standi, to file the suit, because it was neither the owner, nor in possession of the suit property. It was stated that, in-fact, Tarlochan Singh and others, were recorded, as owners of the property, in dispute, bearing khasra No. 71/1(1-8), khewat/khatauni Nos. 336/428, as per jamabandi, for the year 1999-2000. It was admitted that the defendant, was not aware of the real owner of the property, in dispute, and, as such, under the bonafide mistake agreed to pay rent @ Rs. 70/- per month to the plaintiff. It was further stated that the defendant, had been continuously paying the rent, to the plaintiff. It was denied that there was relationship of land-lord and tenant, between the plaintiff, and the defendant. It was further denied that earlier the arrears of rent, had been paid, by the defendant, under bonafide RSA No. 3148 of 2007 3 mistake. It was further stated that the plaintiff, had no concern with the suit property, and the defendant, had been kept, in dark, by claiming the same to be its ownership. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property as prayed for? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 8498/- alongwith interest as prayed for? OPP (iii) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by its act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD (iv) Whether Ajwinder Singh and Gurminder Pal have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD (v) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.07. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. RSA No. 3148 of 2007 4 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, an admission, was made, in the written statement, that the appellant, was tenant, in the property, in dispute, under the plaintiff/respondent. He further submitted that, such an erroneous admission, could be withdrawn, by a party, at any time. He further submitted that the defendant/appellant, purchased the property, in dispute, from another person, who was the owner, as the plaintiff, was not the owner thereof, and, hence, tenancy, which was created, in his favour, came to an end. He further submitted that the Courts below, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, recorded perverse findings, leading to the decreeing of suit. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, no doubt, an erroneous admission, could be withdrawn, by a party, at any time, but, in the instant case, once the defendant/appellant, admitted the plaintiff/respondent, as land- lord/owner of the property, in dispute, without any evidence, as to how, that admission, was erroneous, the same could not be withdrawn. He further submitted that, even under the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the defendant/appellant, could not deny the ownership/land-lordship of the plaintiff, during the currency of the tenancy. He further submitted that, even if, the property, was purchased, by the defendant/appellant, from a third person, tenancy right, would not merge with ownership, and he was required to first surrender his tenancy, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, and, RSA No. 3148 of 2007 5 thereafter, could claim his right, on the basis of the sale deed, if any. He placed reliance on Bhogadi Kannababu & Others Vs. Vuggina Pydamma & others, 2006(1), RCR (Rent), 535 (SC), T. Lakshmipathi and others Vs. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others, 2003 (2), RCR (Rent), 117 (SC), and Paras Ram and others Vs. Mahant Raghbir Dass, 2004(2) HRR, 99, in support of his contention. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly erroneous, as the legislative intention is very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The Courts below, on due appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion, that the RSA No. 3148 of 2007 6 defendant/appellant, was inducted, as a tenant, in the demised premises, by the plaintiff/respondent, and, as such, he could not deny the land- lordship/ownership of the latter, in respect of the demised premises. An admission, was also made, by the defendant/appellant, in the written statement, that he was tenant, in the demised premises, and the plaintiff, was the land-lord/owner of the property, in dispute. No doubt, it is open to a party to explain admission. However, in the instant case, the defendant/appellant, failed to explain the admission, made by him, in the written statement, and, thus, he could not wriggle out of the same. No help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from Baldev Singh & others Vs. Manohar Singh & another, 2006(3) RCR (Civil), 844 (SC), relied upon by him, in support of his contention, as the ratio of law, laid down therein, is not applicable to the facts of the case. In Bhogadi Kannababu & Others' and Paras Ram and others' cases (supra), it was held, that a tenant, who has been let into possession, cannot deny his landlord's title, however, defective, it may be, so long as, he has not restored possession by surrender to his landlord. It was further held that denial of ownership, was barred, under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. In T. Lakshmipathi and others' case (supra), it was held, by the Apex Court, that the mere fact, that the tenant purchased a part of the premises, from the co-owners, his right, would not merge with the ownership, and the tenant, was liable to be evicted or he should surrender his tenancy, in the first instance, and, thereafter, he can establish right, on the basis of the title deed executed, in his favour. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully RSA No. 3148 of 2007 7 applicable, to the facts of the instant case. 12. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that the defendant/appellant, was inducted, as a tenant, in the demised premises by the plaintiff/respondent; that he was estopped from denying the ownership/land-lordship of the plaintiff/respondent, in respect of the demised premises, under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act; that the mere fact, that the property, in dispute, was purchased, by the defendant/appellant, from a third person, did not amount to merging his tenancy rights therein; that he was liable to surrender his possession, as tenant, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, in the first instance, and only, thereafter, he could claim his right, on the basis of the title deed, if any, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 14 For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 12.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE