RSA No. 693 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 693 of 2007 Date of Decision: 5.8.2009 Raj Mohar ......Appellant Versus Smt. Komal Jain .......Respondent 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 Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for permanent injunction was decreed on the basis of possession of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff alleges himself to be a tenant under the defendant since 22.11.1997 at the monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. The plaintiff sought the restraint order against defendants from evicting the plaintiff forcibly and without the process of law. The defendant has taken up a stand that the plaintiff was not inducted as a tenant. Rather an agreement to sell was executed in the month of May-June, 1997 for a consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid as earnest money. The plaintiff has not executed the sale deed. The original agreement is with the RSA No. 693 of 2007 (2) plaintiff and that the plaintiff has not given copy of the same to the defendant. Since the limitation to seek specific performance of the agreement has expired, therefore, the defendant is entitled to possession of the house in question on the basis of her title. One of the issues framed was whether the plaintiff was a lessee under the defendant. The learned trial Court returned a finding that though the plaintiff is in possession of the house in dispute, but not as a tenant. It has also been found that the defendant has not been able to show that the possession of the plaintiff is of a prospective vendee. Since the plaintiff was found to be in an unauthorised possession of the house being trespasser, the suit was dismissed. However, in appeal, the learned District Judge, decreed the suit holding the plaintiff to be in settled possession of the property in dispute with permission of the landlord. Therefore, he cannot be evicted except in due course of law. With the said modification in respect of issue No. 2 in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the appeal was accepted and the suit was decreed to the extent that the plaintiff cannot be evicted from the house in dispute, except in due course of law. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that issue No.1 i.e., whether the plaintiff is a lessee under the defendant, was required to be decided by the learned first Appellate Court. It is not necessary to examine the said question in the present suit as the decree for permanent injunction has been granted in favour of the appellant in view of his possession. In a suit for permanent injunction, it is the question of possession, which is relevant. Having found that the plaintiff is in permissive possession, I do not find that the finding on issue No.1 i.e., RSA No. 693 of 2007 (3) in respect of the lease, was required to be given. Such question will be decided in appropriate proceedings as and when initiated by the parties. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 05-08-2009 ds