IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1456 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : April 16, 2009 Patwant Singh Appellant Versus The Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Bhogpur, District Jalandhar through its Managing Director Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge (Adhoc) Jalandhar dismissing the appeal against judgment dated 24.2.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant alongwith other employees was dismissed from service without holding enquiry. The appellant challenged the dismissal order before the Labour Court, Jalandhar which upheld the dismissal but directed the Sugar Mill to pay the back wages. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as the respondent) filed a suit against the appellant to vacate the Quarter No. 77-D situated in Sugar Mill Colony, Bhogpur R.S.A. No. 1456 of 2008 (O&M) 2 and also to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1000 P.M. w.e.f. 20.8.93 but neither appellant had vacated the said house nor paid the damages. Since the appellant was in unauthorized occupation, therefore, respondent mill had to file a suit for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to vacate and hand over the possession of the quarter to the respondent and to pay damages. The suit was decreed and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises and pay damages to the aforesaid rate w.e.f. 14.10.97 till the vacation of the quarter. Appellant's appeal was dismissed. The fact that the appellant was employee of the mill and occupied a quarter No. 77-D in Sugar Mills Colony Bhogpur. It also stands proved on the record that he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 19.8.93 under the orders of Managing Director and had also challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court but could not succeed. It is also not disputed that the appellant was occupying the aforesaid quarter and he did not vacate the same despite specific directions issued to him. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts san any defect or illegality inviting interference of this Court. Since the appellant enjoyed the occupation and as such he is bound to pay for the use and occupation. Since the appellant did not cross- examine the witnesses, therefore, inference would be drawn that the appellant has accepted the case of the respondent. Thus, both the courts below were justified in holding that the moment he was dismissed from service, his license regarding house stood cancelled and he was required to vacate the same forthwith. R.S.A. No. 1456 of 2008 (O&M) 3 No substantial question of law arises in this case and no interference needs to be called for. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 16.04.2009 JUDGE reena