IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH === Civil Misc. No. 2173-C of 2008 Regular Second Appeal No. 650 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.3.2008 Gulzar Singh --- Appellant Versus Har Kaur --- Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is an unfortunate litigation where a mother has been fighting against her son for getting possession of a portion of house No. 663, situated in Mohalla Kumharan, Ward No.8, village Babyal, Tehsil and District Ambala as reflected with letters A B C D (Room) E D F G(kitchen) and H I J K (Room-cattle shed) shown in red colour in the site plan appended with the plaint and henceforth to be referred as “the suit property”. The present appeal has been filed by defendant-Gulzar Singh, who is son of plaintiff-Har Kaur. A decree for possession by way of eviction was passed in favour of the plaintiff by the trial court on 27.7.2006. The appeal carried at the instance of the defendant failed and was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2007. C.M. No. 2173-C of 2008 R.S.A. No. 650 of 2008 The pleadings of the parties, if to be noticed collectively, would be thus: Undisputedly, the defendant is the son of the plaintiff. The defendant is residing in a portion of House No. 663 situated in the locality noticed above. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is totally disobedient and strong-headed person and his cruel-some nature was non-suited to her. The defendant even extended threat to the plaintiff to kill her in case she attempted to get him evicted from the suit property. The father of the defendant has already dis-owned him by giving an insertion in a newspaper dated 14.3.1999. The defendant is polluting the environment and also rendering the living conditions of the human beings living there unbearable. Dismayed by such behaviour of her son, the plaintiff wanted him to vacate the suit property. Another house bearing No. 676 has been purchased in the same locality by the husband of the plaintiff for use and occupation of the defendant and he was asked to shift to that house, but he was not willing to vacate the suit property and shift to house No. 676. The defendant was merely a licencee in the suit property and the plaintiff terminated his tenancy with effect from 1.1.2002 by serving a registered notice dated 2.12.2001 on him, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff also prayed that the defendant was liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit property w.e.f. 1.1.2002 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month till he vacated the same. The defendant controverted the pleas of the plaintiff and stated that he had great love and respect for the plaintiff. It was however, admitted that there are some blots on the relations of the plaintiff with the wife of the defendant that has given rise to the whole dispute. It was stated that the suit property was constructed by the defendant with his own funds and he was the absolute owner and in 2 C.M. No. 2173-C of 2008 R.S.A. No. 650 of 2008 exclusive possession thereof without any obstruction from any quarter whatsoever and the plaintiff was no body to ask him to vacate the portion in his possession. The allegations of creating unhealthy environment and receipt of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act were denied. The controversy was squeezed in the shape of various issues noticed in the impugned judgments. The pleas of the plaintiff were found tenable and were consequently accepted by the trial court. The trial court returned a finding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and after termination of his licence, the possession of the defendant over the suit property was unauthorized. On the strength of the latter finding, it was further held that the defendant being in unauthorized possession was liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff for use and occupation of the said property, which were ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month, with effect from the date of termination of the licence, i.e. 1.1.2002, till the vacation of the suit property. The suit was consequently decreed as indicated above. The first appellate court, in the appeal carried by the defendant, did not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial court and further finding that the appeal was time barred also, accordingly dismissed the same. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact which are based on correct appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record. Though the counsel argued that the said findings are legally not sustainable, but he could not pin-point any particular reason in that 3 C.M. No. 2173-C of 2008 R.S.A. No. 650 of 2008 behalf. The counsel also could not show to this Court any illegality or perversity in the findings of the courts below nor could otherwise persuade this Court by reference to any law or the material available on the record that any of the findings was illegal and called for interference by this Court in second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the appeal has been heard on merits and has been dismissed, the question of condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is left open and no order is passed in the application made by the appellant in that regard. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) March 13, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 4