-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 218 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 25, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 218 of 2011 (O&M). Iqbal Rai and others ... Appellants VERSUS Khalsa National Dewan (Regd.), Shahpur Road, Ludhiana through its Manager and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Pannu, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Miscellaneous No.641-C of 2011. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of four days in filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.218 of 2011 (O&M) Defendants-appellants are in second appeal -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 218 of 2011 (O&M). aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendants-appellants for possession of four rooms, one latrine, one kitchen, courtyard etc., was decreed. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendants- appellants and have gone through the impugned judgments. The plaintiff-respondent i.e Khalsa National Dewan (Registered) Shahpur Road, Ludhiana, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Kanshi Ram, who was owner of property No.B-XI/177, sold the entire property to the plaintiff- respondent on 7.2.1969 and delivered vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. However, as Kanshi Ram did not have any other property, he requested the plaintiff to permit him to use a portion of the property for his residence. Acceding to the request of Kanshi Ram, the plaintiff allowed him and his wife on 7.2.1969 to use portion consisting of four rooms, one kitchen, one latrine, courtyard etc. The plaintiff accepted Kanshi Ram as its licencee. Kanshi Ram agreed to pay Rs.1/- as a licence fee. The licence was for a period of ten years. On the expiry of ten years, the licence was to revoke automatically. The plaintiff issued notice dated 22.1.1978 revoking the licence. After the death of Kanshi Ram, defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 made additions/alterations in the said building. They also demolished roof of one of the rooms and installed a tin shed in front of one room and a portion of the wall though they had no authority to do so. Defendant No.2 was also in occupation of one room. The plaintiff -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 218 of 2011 (O&M). filed the instant suit when the defendants failed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the said premises to it (plaintiff). The defendants contested the suit. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that Kanshi Ram and his wife had only been permitted to use a portion of the building, which had been sold by Kanshi Ram to the plaintiff on 7.2.1969, as a licencee for a period of ten years. Kanshi Ram was inducted as a licence on the said portion of the building by the plaintiff on 7.2.1969 i.e the date when he (Kanshi Ram) had sold the entire property to the plaintiff. Notice dated 22.1.1978 (Exhibit P.12) was issued by the plaintiff to Kanshi Ram revoking the licence. After revocation of the licence on 22.1.1978, the possession of Kanshi Ram and thereafter of the defendants over the demised premises was illegal. The defendants have no right to retain the demised premises with them. The plaintiff produced on record certified copy of the sale deed, whereby Kanshi Ram had sold the entire property including the portion given to Kanshi Ram as a -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 218 of 2011 (O&M). licencee, to it (plaintiff). On the other hand, the defendants could not produce on record any sale deed, conveyance deed, letter of allotment etc. in order to prove their ownership qua the property in dispute. The plaintiff also produced on record licence deed dated 7.2.1969. The defendants could not lead any evidence to prove that this licence deed was a forged or fictitious document. As per the licence deed dated 7.2.1969, the licence was for ten years, which expired on 7.2.1979. The plaintiff had revoked the licence by issuing notice dated 22.1.1978. Thus, after the expiry of licence period or revocation thereof, the possession of Kanshi Ram or the defendants over the suit property was unlawful and status of the defendants thereafter was that of trespassers. No fault, therefore, can be found with the findings recorded by both the Courts below. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 25, 2011. JUDGE ak