IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1672 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.4.2010 Surinder Kumar. ....... Appellant. Versus Bhag Kaur and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: None for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The defendant has filed the instant Regular Second appeal. The plaintiffs are successors-in-interest of one Jiwan Singh, who was owner of the shop in question and who expired on 7.1.2002. He had created a partnership with the present appellant. After the death of Jiwan Singh, the said partnership came to an end and the plaintiffs demanded possession of the shop in question which was in possession of the appellant under the partnership agreement. However, when an attempt was made by the plaintiffs to take possession of the shop in question, the appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction which was decreed on R.S.A.No.1672 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... 17.9.2005 and it was held that they could take possession of the shop in question in due course of law. The appellant was also held to be in possession of the shop in question not as a tenant but under the partnership agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed another suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits for use and occupation of the shop in question, which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2009. The claim of the plaintiffs for mense profits at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month was, however, not accepted and their claim was restricted to Rs.1000/- per month. On the other hand, the plea of the appellant that he was a tenant on the premises in question was negated. The appeal of the defendant-appellant and the cross objections filed by one of the legal representatives of Jiwan Singh, namely, Gurvinder Kaur, were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala (described hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2010. On 28.4.2010 when the instant appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contended that the evidence on record had not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. It was further contended that the defendant-appellant was a tenant on the shop in question which fact was duly established and since the evidence on record was not appreciated in right perspective, the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court deserved to be set aside. However, after hearing the learned counsel and perusing the impugned judgment, I was of R.S.A.No.1672 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... the opinion that the appeal was totally without any merit because the most glaring aspect of the matter is that the appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction by pleading his tenancy and seeking to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering in his possession in which suit a categoric finding was recorded that he was not a tenant in the premises in dispute, but was in possession thereof on the strength of partnership agreement between him and Jiwan Singh-deceased and which possession permitted him to carry out business activities under the partnership agreement. The plea of tenancy as raised by the appellant, in my opinion, was rightly negated as there was no material from where it could be said that the tenancy in his favour existed. Neither any rent note nor any material regarding payment of rent was produced on record. The plaintiffs were also proved to be the legal heirs of Jiwan Singh-deceased and in view of the findings recorded in the earlier proceedings, the factum of partnership between him and the appellant stood established and in view of the provisions of Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act,1932, the said partnership came to an end on the death of Jiwan Singh. In view of this, there could be no other conclusion, but to say that the partnership between the appellant and Jiwan Singh stood dissolved upon the death of the latter and since the plaintiffs were his successors-in-interest, they were entitled to the possession of the properties which belonged to him. It has also been proved on record that the shop in question belonged to Jiwan Singh and the same had been given to the appellant for carrying out business activities under the partnership agreement. R.S.A.No.1672 of 2010 (O&M) -4- .... Having come to know that the Court was not inclined to accept the contentions raised by him, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that some time may be granted to him to seek instructions from the appellant as to whether he was ready to vacate the premises or not. His prayer was accepted and the matter was adjourned to today. However, when the case was taken up today, no one appeared for the appellant despite the fact that it was called out repeatedly. In this eventuality and on the basis of the above discussion, it is held that the appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed in limine. All pending civil miscellaneous applications are also dismissed in view of the above. April 30,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge