RSA No. 785 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 785 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.02.2011. Sher Singh and others .......Appellants Vs. The Delhi Pinjrapol Society (Regd.), Delhi ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that plaintiff society was owner of the suit land and the same had been given to the defendants as licensees with a condition to make it cultivable, whereas the actual control and management of the said land had remained with the plaintiff society. The society had terminated the licence vide notice dated 23.10.2004. Defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8, in their joint written statement, averred that they were in possession of the suit land as tenants and their rights were duly protected under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 and Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act 1953 and defendants could not be evicted from the suit land except in accordance with the provisions of the said Acts. RSA No. 785 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Defendant No. 4, in his written statement, took up the same pleas as those taken by the other defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the land as mentioned in para No. 3 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 7.10.2010, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within two months. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.1.2011, the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff society was that the suit land had been given to the defendants as licensees. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that they were tenants under RSA No. 785 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the plaintiff. The defendants had failed to establish that they were paying any rent to the society. As per the entries in the revenue record, defendants were described as “Basrah Malkan Bawajah Nautor”. The suit land was Banjar land and was made cultivable by the defendants. Since, the defendants had not been paying any rent, the courts below then rightly concluded that the possession of the defendants over the suit land was of licensees. The plaintiff had served a notice qua termination of license. Hence, the plaintiff society, who was the owner of the suit property, was liable to get back the possession of the suit property. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 16, 2011 Gurpreet