RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3001 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.08.2009 1. Shri Kishan; 2. Rakesh Kumar; 3. Mukesh; 4. Sonu; 5. Kali Charan; All sons of deceased Sunheri Lal 6. Smt. Triveni Devi widow of deceased Sunheri Lal; all r/o TCC Colony, Sector 10, Faridabad. (legal heirs and representatives of Sunheri Lal, since deceased) ... Appellants Versus 1. Vijay Kapoor son of Faquir Chand, r/o H. No. 741, Sector 7-C, Faridabad. 2. Puran Lal son of Shri Sewa Ram, r/o H.No. 2D/Wd-15, NIT,Faridabad. 3. Suman Kumar Bhatia son of Shri Tek Chand Bhatia; 4. Lal Chand Sachdeva son of Shri Mul Chand Sachdeva; both r/o 2A/7, B.P. NIT, Faridabad. ...Respondents RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --2-- 5. Bhajan Lal son of Het Ram; 6. Kishan Bahadur son of Budhi Lal; both residents of TCC Colony, Sector 10, Faridabad. ...Proforma Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridabad, vide which, it decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of the amount of compensation for use and occupation, and the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --3-- 2. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the co-owners of the property, described in para 1 of the plaint, as portion No. 11/1, measuring 585.05 sq. yds. (107'. 9” x 49' x 3”) being part of industrial property (TCC), bearing khasra No. /Rectangle No. 36, killa No. 11 Min, 12 Min, 13 Min, 18 Min, 19, 20 Min, 21 Min, 22, 23 Min, Rectangle No. 46, killa No. 1 Min, 2 Min, 3 Min, known as TCC situated near Sector 10, within the Municipal Corporation area Faridabad. It was stated that earlier M/s Technological Consultant Centre was the owner in possession of the aforesaid property, which went into voluntary liquidation, and appointed Sh. J.B. Dada Chand Ji, its liquidator, who sold the property, in dispute, to the plaintiffs, (now respondent nos. 1 to 4) for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,65,00,000/-, and executed and got registered the sale deed dated 30.04.1997, in their favour. It was RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --4-- further stated that Sunehri Lal, defendant (now deceased) being represented by his legal representatives (now appellants) being an employee of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, was permitted, to use a portion of the said property, as a licencee. It was further stated that after M/s Technological Consultant Centre, went into liquidation and after the sale of the property thereof, the possession of the defendant qua the disputed premises, became unauthorized and illegal, but as his contract of service with M/s Technological Consultant Centre, came to an end, resulting into automatic revocation of the licence, he failed to hand over the vacant possession of the same either to M/s Technological Consultant Centre, or the plaintiffs. It was further stated that the defendant was many a time, asked to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, to the plaintiffs and pay damages for three years RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --5-- for use and occupation of the suit property, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for possession of recovery of damages was filed. 3. Sunehri Lal, defendant (now deceased) alongwith other defendants (now respondent nos. 5 and 6), put in appearance, and filed joint written statement, wherein, they took up various objections. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had neither cause of action, nor locus standi to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was time barred. It was denied that the plaintiffs were the co-owners of the suit property. It was stated that the boundaries of the suit property given by them were wrong. It was admitted that M/s Technological Consultant Centre, was the owner of the suit property. It was admitted that the defendants were employees of M/s Technological Consultant RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --6-- Centre. It was denied that they were inducted as licencees in the property, in question, being employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre. It was also denied that after M/s Technological Consultant Centre, went into liquidation, the possession of the defendants became unauthorized, and illegal. It was further stated that defendant No. 1 Bhajan Lal (now proforma respondent no.5), paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/-, as the total sale consideration to Dhruv Kumar, in the year 1994, and he constructed a residential house, from his own funds, over a portion of the suit property sold in his favour. It was further stated that Dhruv Kumar, promised defendant No. 1, (now proforma respondent no.5) to execute the sale deed, but he had not executed the same, in his favour. It was further stated that Kishan Bahadur, the other defendant (now respondent no.6), paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/-, to Dhruv Kumar, in the year RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --7-- 1994, of his portion, and constructed a residential house, over the same. It was further stated that Sunehri Lal, defendant (now deceased) represented by his legal representatives (now appellants), paid a sum of Rs. 32,800/-, to Dhruv Kumar, in the year 1994, and constructed a residential house, from his own funds. It was further stated that they were enjoying the peaceful possession, as owners of the suit property. It was denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the property, in dispute, and recovery of damages for use and occupation of the property by the defendants. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were struck:- i) Whether the plaintiffs are the co-owners of property called as portion No. 11/1 as precisely detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint by virtue of a sale deed dated 30.04.97? OPP RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --8-- ii)Whether the possession of the defendants qua the disputed premises became unauthorized and illegal as they failed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs? OPP iii)Whether the plaintiffs have a legal right to get the defendants ejected from the defendants premises and to obtain the possession through the present suit alongwith the damages/compensation for the house and compensation @ Rs. 2000/- per month? OPP iv)Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD v) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD vi)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD vii) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decided issues No. 1 and 2, in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants. Issue No. 3, was partly decided, in favour of the plaintiffs, and partly, in favour of the RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --9-- defendants. Issues No. 4, 5, and 6, were also decided, in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants. Ultimately, the suit of the plaintiffs for possession, directing the defendants to vacate the premises, in question, was decreed. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 06.04.2009. 7. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendants (now appellants). 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Courts below, were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the defendant was inducted as licencee, being employee of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, when it went into liquidation of the property, in dispute. He RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --10-- further submitted that the official liquidator had auctioned the property of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, to M/s Renuka Estate Agency, for a sum of Rs. 3,65,00,000/-, and out of this sale consideration, M/s Renuka Estate Agency, paid a sum of Rs. 2.2 crores to the liquidator, and removed the movable property, which was not even worth Rs. 50,00,000/-. He further submitted that, later on, M/s Renuka Estate Agency, could not meet its commitment for the payment of remaining auction money, and, therefore, for the remaining sum of Rs. 1,63,00,000/-, the suit property, was sold to the plaintiffs. He further submitted that M/s Renuka Estate Agency being the auction purchaser of the suit property, with the permission of liquidator, sold various parcels of the same, in favour of Sunehri Lal (deceased) and respondents no.5 and 6, who paid the entire sale consideration of their respective portions, to it (M/s RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --11-- Renuka Estate Agency), and, therefore, they were put in possession thereof, and acquired right therein. He further submitted that, as such, the possession of the appellants, could not be termed as illegal or unauthorized. He further submitted that, at the most the plaintiffs were entitled to symbolic possession. He further submitted that the Courts below, were, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the appellants, being in illegal possession of the property, in dispute, the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession thereof. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellants, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is evident from para 36 of the judgment of the Appellate Court, that bare perusal of the testimony of DW1, DW2, and DW3, proved beyond doubt, RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --12-- that the defendants were employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, and the said company closed its operation. It is further evident from para 36 of the said judgement that the company known as M/s Technological Consultant Centre, went into winding up proceedings, and liquidator J.B. Dada Chand Ji, was appointed. Vide sale deed P1, the property, in dispute, was sold to the plaintiffs (now respondents no.1 to 4), as was evident from the statements of PW1 to PW14. M/s Renuka Estate Agency, in favour of which the auction of the property of M/s Technological Consultant Centre was made, by liquidator, could not fulfill its commitment of payment of a major portion of the auction money, as a result of which, the property, in dispute, was sold in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants (now appellants) were only the employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre. There is nothing, on record, that Dhruv Kumar or M/s Renuka Estate Agency, was ever RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --13-- authorized by the official liquidator, to deal with the property, in dispute, in any manner or sell the same. Once no authority was given to M/s Renuka Estate Agency for the sale of property of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, or any portion thereof, Dhruv Kumar, was not competent to execute any agreement to sell, in respect of any portion of the suit property, in favour of Sunehri Lal. Sunehri Lal, being an employee, was only inducted as a licencee in the property, in dispute. His licence was revoked, and on his failure to surrender the possession of the property, in question, he became unauthorized occupant. In these circumstances, he and after his death, his legal representative, (now appellants), had no right or title, in the property, in question. The property, which was in possession of Sunheri Lal (now deceased), represented by his legal heirs, was also purchased by the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, on RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --14-- the passing of the decree of eviction, they could take actual phyical possession of the specific portion in unauthorized possession of Sunheri Lal (deceased) and after his death, in possession of his legal heirs, who are the appellants. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, that Sunehri Lal, was only an employee of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, which went into liquidation; that he was inducted as a licencee and his licence was, ultimately, revoked; that the property, in dispute, was sold in favour of the plaintiffs vide sale deed P1 and they became owners thereof; that M/s Renuka Estate Agency, being unsuccessful auction purchaser or one Dhruv Kumar, on their behalf, was never authorized by the official liquidator, to deal with the property, in any manner, or sell the same and, as such, was incompetent to enter into agreement to sell; that after the revocation of licence of Sunehri Lal, RSA No. 3001 of 2009 --15-- (deceased) he was merely an unauthorized occupant of the property and, as such, the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the property, in dispute, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not warrant, any interference. Thus, no substantial question of law, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 13.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE