R.S.A No. 1842 of 2007(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1842 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision : October 29, 2009 Jeet and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. State of Haryana & others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants seeking, firstly, that they have become owners of the land in dispute because they traced their title through the original owner and secondly, in any case they had become owners under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Both the Courts have concurrently found that neither the appellants were able to prove that they had become owners of the land in dispute nor had they succeeded in proving that they were entitled to be treated as occupancy tenants on the ground that they were not able to establish that there was any intention not R.S.A No. 1842 of 2007(O&M) ::2:: to evict them at the time of inception of the tenancy. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge ? ii) Whether a tenant can be dispossessed from land without following the due procedure prescribed under the law ? iii) Whether the burden of proof was upon the defendants in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Muni Ram and others versus Phullia and Lalu, 1986-PLJ-231 ? iv) Whether the tenancy rights of the plaintiffs/appellants can be curtailed by the respondents/defendants without adopting the proper procedure provided for eviction of a tenant ? v) Whether the tenancy rights of the plaintiffs/defendants are protected in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Munshi and others vs Richpal and others AIR 1977 SC 1206 ? vi) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to get back the possession of the suit land in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court ? vii) Whether the learned Courts below have not considered the evidence in the right perspective ?” It would be seen that questions No. (iii), (iv), (v) and (vii) relate to the issue of the appellants being able to establish that they were R.S.A No. 1842 of 2007(O&M) ::3:: occupancy tenants. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings of fact (that the appellants have not been able to prove the essential ingredients of Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act), are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would require interference under Section 100 of the CPC. As regards questions No.(i) and (ii), the argument of counsel for the appellants is that firstly the appellants are still in possession and in any case are entitled for protection against illegal dispossession, or alternatively, that the respondents have not been able to bring any material on record to show how and in what manner the appellants were dis- possessed and in these circumstances it would have to be held that any dis- possession was illegal and, thus, the appellants are entitled to the restoration of possession. Even on this, both Courts have come to the conclusion that the appellants are not in possession. As regards the prayer that the appellants should be put back in possession, no such relief was sought in the suit and at this stage it would not be possible for this Court to enlarge the relief sought. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 29, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1842 of 2007(O&M) ::4::