RSA No.2412 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2412 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.01.2012 Nikka Singh ......Appellant Vs. Sajjan Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present: Mr. K.R. Dhawan, Advocate for the appellant. *** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral). The plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Briefly stated that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as regards the shop fully detailed in the heading of the plaint situated on Railway Road within Municipal limits Zira. It was pleaded that he was occupying the shop in dispute as tenant of Sajjan Singh-defendant No.1 since the year 1970. Initially, the rate of rent was ` 125/- per month. Subsequently, since the year 1990, the rate of rent was enhanced to ` 250/- per month. The plaintiff however, pleaded that no receipt regarding rent had ever been issued by Sajjan Singh-defendant No.1 and it was an oral tenancy. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 is not receiving any rent from the plaintiff since September, 1998 and as such is RSA No.2412 of 2011 (O&M) -2- insisting upon vacation of the demised shop. It was also pleaded that defendant No.2-Gurmej Kaur, who is wife of defendant No.1 is alleging herself to be the owner of shop in dispute but the plaintiff had taken the shop on rent from defendant No.1 and as such there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Gurmej Kaur and plaintiff. On 28.11.2000, it was alleged that the defendants came to the shop in dispute and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the shop within a day or two, failing which they would demolish the shop and would dispossess the plaintiff from the shop in dispute forcibly. Accordingly, the suit had been instituted. Upon notice, the defendants filed reply stating that the shop in dispute was in dilapidated condition and roof of the shop had already fallen more than two years back. A stand was taken in the written-statement that the plaintiff had never remained a tenant in the disputed shop. The shop in dispute had been purchased by Gurmej Kaur-defendant No.2 from Chanan Singh in 1974 and as such defendant No.1 is neither owner nor landlord of the said shop in dispute. Accordingly, it was further pleaded that defendant No.1 had never received any rent from the plaintiff. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and having appreciated the evidence adduced on record, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff/appellant filed a civil appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur and vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.2011, the appeal of the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed. It is under such circumstances that the plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length. It has RSA No.2412 of 2011 (O&M) -3- been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence adduced on record in the correct perspective. Learned counsel has further contended that in terms of the evidence led, the Courts below had erred in not having returned the findings that the plaintiff/appellant had remained in possession of the shop in question as a tenant under defendant/respondent No.1 and that his rights were protected under the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the statements made on behalf of the appellant, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that the present appeal must failed. The plaintiff/appellant for the sake of establishing his possession of the shop in dispute had examined PW-2 Sohan Singh, Junior Assistant working with Municipal Council, Zira, who had brought the assessment register of Municipal Council, Moga regarding the property in dispute for the year 1983-84, Exhibit P-2 as also for the years 1985-86 which was exhibited as Exhibit P-3. As per Exhibit P-2 and P-3, Atma Singh, brother of the plaintiff/appellant has been reflected as tenant in the shop in dispute upto the year 1996. In said record, name of the plaintiff/appellant did not even find a mention as tenant in the shop in dispute. The assessment record of Municipal Council, Zira for the years ending 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was also produced on record as Exhibit P-4 in which one Shri Sohan Lal was reflected as tenant of the shop in dispute. The Courts below have clearly noticed that the plaintiff/appellant never figured as a tenant of the shop in dispute as per records maintained by Municipal Council, Zira. That apart the plaintiff/appellant had also examined PW-2 i.e. clerk from RSA No.2412 of 2011 (O&M) -4- the Electricity Board, Zira. He has produced on record the application filed by Atma Singh, brother of the plaintiff/appellant for taking electricity connection regarding the shop in dispute. Even the electricity connection was released in the name of Atma Singh on 03.01.1974. Gurjant Singh, Labour Inspector was also examined by the plaintiff/appellant, who had proved on record an entry at serial No.1018 regarding registration of shop of plaintiff/appellant in the name and style of M/s Guru Nanak Repairing Works, Railway Road, Zira in the year 1991. However, the Courts below have not found such entry to be sufficient proof as regards possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the shop in dispute. The Courts below have also taken a note on the contradiction between the statements recorded of the plaintiff/appellant himself as also his brother Atma Singh. Atma Singh had stated that previously he was working alone in the shop in dispute for about two years and it was thereafter that the plaintiff/appellant started working with him. On the other hand, the plaintiff/appellant had stated on oath that he was previously in possession of the shop in dispute and it was his brother Atma Singh, who joined him later in point of time i.e. after a period of 5/7 years from the time when he had taken the shop in dispute on rent from defendant No.1. No receipt regarding payment of rent by the plaintiff/appellant to the defendants was placed on record and that apart defendant No.2 had purchased the shop in dispute in the year 1974 and defendant No.1 has taken a categoric plea that he was neither owner nor landlord of the shop in dispute. No evidence to the contrary has been led and as such plaintiff/appellant can not held to be the tenant under defendant No.1 since the year 1970. The findings and conclusions recorded by the Courts below RSA No.2412 of 2011 (O&M) -5- are based upon an appreciation of the evidence duly led. The same would be binding on the High Court. There would be no scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure on such findings recorded by the Courts below, which are based on sound reasoning appreciation of evidence and conclusions arrived upon thereafter. No question of law much less substantial questions of law arises for determination in the present second appeal. The present appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. January 09, 2011 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE