IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 2610 of 2008 Date of decision:- 15.12.2009 The Haryana Urban development Authority appellant vs Anita Devi and another Respondent Present: Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate. Mr. GI Sharma, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The suit of the plaintiff- respondents for a declaration that they had been running two shops to entitle them to the allotment of the shops under the rehabilitation scheme stands decreed by the courts below. Learned counsel for the defendant- appellant has vehemently contended that the plaintiff- respondents have not been able to establish the running of two shops by producing cogent evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment and decree of the courts below, I am of the opinion that a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the courts below on the basis of admission of the Estate Officer that in the survey conduced in the year 1994-1995, Pritam Chand father-in-law of plaintiff- respondent no.1 and grand father of plaintiff-respondent No.2 was having two shops. No substantial question of law arises warranting interference. Dismissed. December 15 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE