RSA No. 755 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 755 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.8.2009 Rattan Lal and others ......Appellant Versus Nand Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri Anish Setia, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the revenue entries in the name of defendants regarding suit land are illegal, null and void and for permanent injunction, was dismissed. The plaintiffs claim to be tenants under the defendants on payment of 1/3rd batai, but as per the defendants, the plaintiffs are tenants on 1/2 batai. The defendants have initiated proceedings for eviction of the RSA No. 755 of 2008 (2) plaintiffs under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have got the revenue record altered to the detriment of the plaintiffs without any notice and any reason and that the defendants are threatening to take possession from the plaintiff forcibly. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are chronic defaulters in payment of rent and the order of ejectment has been passed against them. The plea that the rate of rent has not been incorporated in the revenue record was also rejected. The basis of such finding is the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Palwal. In appeal, the findings, were affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that an application for additional evidence was filed before the learned first Appellate Court so as to produce the order of the Commissioner dated 5.12.2003, whereby the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector were set aside. It was held that the plaintiffs are tenants on payment of 1/3rd batai. It is contended that the application for additional evidence was not decided by the learned first Appellate Court and therefore, the findings recorded are incorrect. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the proceedings initiated by the respondents for eviction of the plaintiff have since been withdrawn by the defendants from the Court of Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Whether the plaintiffs are tenants on payment of 1/3rd batai or 1/2 batai is a question which can only be examined in the eviction proceedings. Since the eviction proceedings itself, have been RSA No. 755 of 2008 (3) withdrawn by the defendants, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28-08-2009 ds