IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.: 41 of 2000 Date of decision : 29.10.2009 Suba Ram(dead) through LRs. …Appellants. Versus Dhyan Dass and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Charu Gupta vice Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the Judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1999 dated 12.11.1999 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karsog in Civil Suit No. 101 of 1994 dated 11.3.1997 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for possession of structure on land comprised in Khatta/Khatauni No. 325/445, Khasra No. 305, Measuring 0-2-2 bighas situate in village Karsog, District. Mandi. According to the plaintiff, her husband Ganga Ram had erected a structure on the suit land and one shop on the first floor alongwith one room and one kitchen on the ground floor were 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 rented out to appellant here-in at monthly rent of Rs. 140/-. According to the plaintiffs, the rent was later increased to Rs.450/- per month from February, 1994. The plaintiff alleged that the appellant had failed to pay rent from the month of April, 1994 and the tenancy of the appellant was terminated on 12.7.1994. Thereafter, the suit for recovery of the possession of the premises in question and arrears of rent was filed. This suit was decreed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karsog vide judgement dated 11.3.1997 who held the plaintiff to be the landlord and the defendant to be the tenant on the premises in question and further decreed the suit for recovery of rent. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed. Thereafter the present appeal was filed. In the present appeal on 3.11.2000 following order was passed:- “CMP No. 60 of 2000: Learned counsel for the applicant states that she is not able to contact her client to verify whether the arrears of rent/use and occupation charges have been deposited or not. Learned counsel for the respondent states that as per the information received from his clients, an amount of Rs.4000/- has been paid by the applicant, whereas the arrears of rent/use and occupation charges calculated upto November, 2000 are Rs.18,000/- In view of this, it is ordered that subject to deposit of the balance arrears of rent/use and occupation charges within a period of eight weeks the interim order dated 31.3.2000 is confirmed. It is made clear that if the amount of arrears is not cleared within the time granted, the stay will stand vacated without any further order. The applicant is further directed to make the payment of arrears of rent/use and occupation charges @ Rs.450/- per month after every quarter before the trial Court. The application is disposed of. Dasti copy.” 3 The stay order was conditional that pending disposal of the appeal the appellant was bound to make payment of use and occupation charges @ 450/- per month and was also required to deposit the arrears of Rs.18,000/- calculated upto November, 2000. According to Ms. Charu Gupta learned vice counsel for the respondents the appellant did not deposit this amount and thereafter the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application for execution of the decree and has now taken possession of the disputed premises. The appeal has virtually become infructuous in view of the subsequent developments. However, I have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The main contention of Shri R.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the owner of the disputed premises. This is a pure question of fact and both the Courts below on proper perusal of the evidence have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the wife of Ganga Ram and has succeeded to his property and is hence the owner of the suit property. The findings given by the learned Courts below are pure findings of the fact which do not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs October 29, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.