Regular Second Appeal No. 1504 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1504 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.4.2009 *** Balbir Singh .. Appellant VS. Vishnu Bhagwan .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant regular second appeal, the defendant- appellant is questioning the legality and impropriety of judgment and decree dated 7.1.2009 passed by the learned First Appellate Court below by dint of which the appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff has been accepted and the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2006 passed by the learned trial court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed with costs and simultaneously has been held entitled to recovery of Rs.18000/- as arrears of rent along with interest @ 8% per annum pendente-lite and future besides to recover Rs.500/- per month as mesne profits from the defendants for use and occupation of the house in question from the filing of the suit till delivery of possession. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper book carefully. It is apparent that the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the house in dispute as such there was no relationship of land-lord-tenant between the parties, leaving no occasion for the defendant to execute the rent note Ex.P1 vide which the plaintiff allegedly rented out the shop to the defendant. However, the consistent stand of the plaintiff was that he inducted the defendant as a tenant over the suit property vide rent note Ex.P1 dated 31.7.1996 and terminated his tenancy vide notice dated 25.7.2002 since the defendant not only failed to pay the rent but also made material alterations Regular Second Appeal No. 1504 of 2009 2 in the suit house. The execution of rent note Ex.P1 though was denied by the defendant but the plaintiff by examining its scribe R.K. Kalra, Advocate as PW1, attesting witness Pawan Kumar PW3, besides handwriting and fingerprint expert PW4 Shamsher Singh Malik, who in his report mentioned that the thumb impression appearing on rent note Ex.P1 tallied with the standard thumb impression of defendant, coupled with his own testimony, proved the due execution of rent note Ex.P1 by the defendant, who in turn, except his own bald statement, did not produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove his plea of having in possession of the property being owner of the same. Thus, it has been held that once the execution of rent note Ex.P1 vide which the plaintiff inducted the defendant as tenant on the suit property on payment of rent of Rs.500/- per month is proved on record, the latter is estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and since the plaintiff by issuing the legal notice has terminated the tenancy of the defendant and despite that he has been in possession thereof, the plaintiff has rightly been held entitled to the possession of the same. The defendant undisputedly denied the relationship between plaintiff and him as that of landlord-tenant, which rightly led the Appellate Court below to conclude that once the defendant is denying the relationship between the parties, he obviously had not paid the rent to the plaintiff and thus finding the defendant in arrears of rent, the plaintiff has rightly been held entitled to recover the same along with mesne profits from the defendant, for the period, as claimed by the plaintiff, in the manner indicated above. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the learned Appellate Court below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 16,2009 Jiten