-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2340 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 09, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2340 of 2010 (O&M). Gurdwara Singh Sabha and another ... Appellants VERSUS Ram Barish Gupta and others Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Ram Barish Gupta for possession of the room on the first floor of Dharmshala Pak Pattan where he (plaintiff-respondent Ram Barish Gupta) was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- and had been dispossessed therefrom was decreed by both the Courts below and defendants were directed to hand over possession of the room -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2340 of 2010 (O&M). after reconstructing the same to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to get possession through Court. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant on a room on the first floor of Dharmshala Pak Pattan on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- vide rent note dated 29.10.1976. The plaintiff had been forcibly dispossessed from the said room by defendants Nos. 2 to 7 on 11.12.1990 and the plaintiff had lodged F.I.R No.11.12.1990 (Exhibit P.W.5/1) in this regard. In fact, defendant No.1 Mahant Attar Dass, who is respondent No.2 herein, admitted the claim of the plaintiff in the written statement filed by him and he did not lead any evidence contrary to the interest of the plaintiff in the case. Darshna Rani (P.W.1), Kishan Chand (P.W.3), Kapil Dev (P.W.4) and Madan Lal (P.W.6) deposed that the property in dispute is known as Dharamshala Pak Pattan and the plaintiff had been inducted as a tenant by Mahant Attar Dass, defendant No.1 and that defendants Nos. 2 to 7, who had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff therefrom, had no right, title or interest in the suit property. None of the defendants chose to appear in the witness box nor they produced on record any document showing their title or interest in the suit property. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2340 of 2010 (O&M). illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 09, 2011. JUDGE ak