RSA No. 2959 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2959 of 2008 Decided on : 12-02-2009 M/s National Engineering Corporation ....Appellant VERSUS Chaman Lal Gupta and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. K.K.Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kohli, Advocate for the appellant MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 12.11.2002 and the First Appellate Court dated 10.4.2008. A suit for permanent injunction was preferred by the plaintiff- appellant against the respondents stating therein that the plaintiff Company is in possession of the portion measuring 14940 sq. feet which is equivalent to 1660 sq. yards marked by letters ABCD as tenant on the payment of rent @ Rs.100/- per month. It is pleaded that the respondents are interfering in that possession. The respondents who were put on notice admitted the tenancy. It was thus pleaded that suit property measuring 1660 sq. yards was let out by Madan Lal now deceased to Ram Kumar s/o Panna Lal vide rent note dated 22.7.1967 on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- per month. The plaintiff Company had nothing to do with the suit property in question and that the RSA No. 2959 of 2008 2 revenue entries to that effect are totally wrong. Ram Kumar who was the original tenant of the suit property sub-let the same to M/s Gurdev Engineering Works without any consent of the respondents regarding which an eviction petition was filed against both Ram Kumar and M/s Gurdev Engineering Works which was dismissed and the appeal against the same was also dismissed. In appeal, case was remanded to the Rent Controller for deciding the same on merits. But the same was dismissed in default and restoration application is pending in that Court. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of portion measuring 14940 square feet marked by letters ABCD as tenant under the defendants since 1.1.1980 on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by its act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the order dated 16.2.1982 is illegal and without jurisdiction? OPD. 7. Relief. On the basis of evidence before it, learned Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court concluded that the appellant was in possession of RSA No. 2959 of 2008 3 the suit property measuring 1660 sq. yards which has been depicted by letters ABCD. However, it went to conclude that the rent note of 1967 which depicted the area in possession of the appellant also provided for a passage of 15 feet and consequently decreed the suit of the appellant in the following terms:- “with respect to the plot bounded on the East by 86' rasta sare aam, on the West by 75'6'' passage for the ingress and out gress of the owner, on the North by 155'4'' owners property and on the South by 180'10'' the property of Sheela Rani out of Khasra no. 1549 to the effect that the defendants are restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession except for 15 feet of land which was meant for passage.” The appellant herein is aggrieved with the said findings and has filed this regular second appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant who has contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and contrary to the record, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is without any merit. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and Ram Kumar was established in the eviction proceedings which had taken place prior to the filing of the suit. The findings of the Courts below were based on the revenue records depicting the appellant to be in possession of land in Khasra No. 1549, measuring 11 biswas = 2 kanal 15 marlas = 1665 sq. yards. A clear finding was recorded in rent petition in which a judgment dated 1.12.1993 (Ex.P.2) was rendered to the effect that M/s National Engineering Corporation, appellant was a tenant on the basis of rent note dated 22.7.1967 since 10.4.1967. These findings were RSA No. 2959 of 2008 4 upheld by the Appellate Authority in its judgment dated 23.1.1998. Therefore, the conclusive finding is that the appellant was in possession on the basis of aforesaid rent note which provided for dimensions of the tenanted premises and also mentined the existence of 15 feet path which has been delineated in the relief clause of the impugned judgments. In view of the above, the findings recorded by both the Courts can neither be termed to be perverse nor can be termed to be against the records so as to warrant any interference in the regular second appeal. Even otherwise these are questions of facts which have been determined and in the absence of any substantial question of law having been shown to have arisen for the determination of this Court, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. February 12, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge