R.S.A.No.4215 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4215 of 2008 Date of Decision:24.12.2008 Ramesh Chand Sharma ....Appellant versus Dr. Amar Vir Matai ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate and Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The defendant has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad dated 26.4.2006 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction, was decreed and the counter-claim of the defendant was dismissed. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff was owner of house No. 1483, Sector 15, Faridabad measuring 373 square yards (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) construction of which was raised in the year 1975-76 upon allotment of the plot therefor vide conveyance deed by the Haryana R.S.A.No.4215 of 2008 -2- Urban Development Authority (for short “the HUDA”). The plaintiff being an Engineer by profession had assignment abroad and was living there along with his family. The defendant who was the paternal uncle of the wife of the plaintiff, approached the plaintiff through Mr. M.R. Sharma, brother-in-law of the wife of the plaintiff, for financial assistance and to give his house to him for a short while as the wife of the defendant was suffering from tuberculosis in the year 1983 and was getting medical treatment in a hospital at Delhi. It was pleaded that the plaintiff directed the defendant to occupy the suit property as licencee/care-taker till the treatment of his wife was over. The defendant did not pay any licence fee to the plaintiff and even the house-tax was also paid by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that after completion of the foreign assignment, on 31.5.1997, the plaintiff terminated the licence and requested the defendant to vacate the house but he did not pay any heed to his request. Thereafter, the defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff on the ground of tenancy. According to the plaintiff, the alleged rent-note dated 31.3.1996 was never executed by him in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff requested the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property but he failed to do so which gave rise to the filing of the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to stop using the suit property. To resist the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that on 22.5.1983, the defendant was granted permission to live in the house by Shri M.R. Sharma as a tenant at the rate of Rs.100/- per month and the rent-note was reduced into writing on 31.3.1996. The R.S.A.No.4215 of 2008 -3- house was in dilapidated condition when the defendant was made to take care of the same in the year 1983 and due to his relationship with the plaintiff, he entered in the house to take care of the property which was lying abandoned. It was further pleaded that the defendant was allowed to raise construction by the plaintiff and he constructed two more rooms and renovated the suit property after spending a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The defendant agreed to forego his claim with regard to the said amount but the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- to him on account of expenses incurred by him on the construction, therefore, a rent note dated 31.3.1996 was executed by mutual agreement. According to the defendant, on 25.5.1997, the plaintiff and Shri M.R.Sharma along with their wives and other persons came there and asked the defendant to vacate the suit property after getting back Rs.1,25,000/- paid by him to the plaintiff but he refused. The defendant filed a counter claim to the effect that he was in possession of the suit property and cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit and decretal of the counter claim was made. The trial Court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2006 and directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of the decree after having stopped using the premises in question. The counter claim filed R.S.A.No.4215 of 2008 -4- by the defendant was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the matter was taken up in appeal by the defendant and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008 while affirming the findings recorded by the trial court dismissed the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator-respondent and have perused the impugned judgments with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made valiant efforts to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record so as to differ with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, but he failed to show any illegality or perversity therein warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The Courts below had recorded a finding of fact that the defendant was in possession of the suit property as licencee only and not as a tenant. Moreover, the rent note, Ex.D1, was held to be shrouded by suspicious circumstances by the courts below. No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. December 24, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE