IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.72 of 2008 Date of decision: 9th December, 2008 Dr. Sailesh Gupta … Appellant Versus Dharam Pal and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil Bansal, Advocate for respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Appellant had failed in two courts below. He filed a suit for permanent injunction that respondent defendant be restrained from dispossessing the appellant plaintiff from a house, details and description of which has been given in the head note of the suit. It was stated in the plaint, which has been shown to me by the counsel for the appellant, that appellant plaintiff was in possession of the property in question as a tenant and has taken the same on rent last year and has been paying the rent to the landlord. The plaint was filed on 11th September, 2000. It has been further stated that premises are used by the plaintiff for residence of his staff members. In the written statement filed, tenancy in question by the appellant plaintiff was specifically denied. It was stated that actually Salig Ram and Bhagwan Dass were in possession of the suit property. Two courts below conclusively held, after meticulously examining the evidence, that documents relied by the appellant plaintiff to show himself to be the tenant, are forged and fabricated documents. Regular Second Appeal No.72 of 2008 Concurrent findings of fact have been returned by the two courts below that appellant plaintiff was never inducted as tenant. Trial Court further held that appellant plaintiff has not examined any witness from the locality to say that he, in fact, is in possession of the suit property as a tenant. PW- 2 Samsher Singh admitted that he had not enquired from the neighbourers about the factum of rent. No staff member was examined by the plaintiff. The Court further held that there is no evidence as to necessity of the plaintiff to take suit property on rent. The Court further held that story of tenancy was apparently introduced to ensure that the defendant respondent do not get possession of the house, even if they succeed as co-sharers. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two courts below, this Court cannot re-appreciate or do re-appraisal of the evidence in Regular Second Appeal. Hence, no interference is called for and the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed, being devoid of any substantial question of law, for consideration of this Court. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 9, 2008 rps 2