R. S. A. No. 1723 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1723 of 2010 Date of Decision : June 02, 2011 Kiranjit Singh .... Appellant Vs. Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. K. Sandhir, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant no.1 Kiranjit Singh, having lost in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent no.1-plaintiff Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu filed suit against defendant no.1-appellant and his mother Manjit Kaur-defendant no.2. The plaintiff alleged that her brother Baljit Singh Gill was owner of property no. B-XIX-378 measuring 330 sq. yds. He sold the same to plaintiff and defendant no.2 to the extent of half share each vide sale deed dated 26.11.1991. Thereafter, defendant no.2 sold her half share in the said property to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 01.01.1996. Defendant no.2 is real Maasi of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 started using one room out of R. S. A. No. 1723 of 2010 2 the aforesaid property as described in the plaint for business of medicines without consent of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 filed suit against plaintiff and defendant no.2 herein for injunction alleging that defendant no.1 is tenant in the disputed room. However, in fact, defendant no.1 is in unauthorized possession of the said room. Accordingly, plaintiff sought possession of the disputed room along with recovery of Rs.1,85,000/- as damages for use and occupation thereof. Defendant no.1 claimed to be tenant in the disputed property, which he described as a shop. He also pleaded stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of previous suit instituted by him. Various other pleas were also raised. Defendant no.2 also supported the case of defendant no.1. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit property and also for recovery of use and occupation charges @ Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till delivery of possession. First appeal preferred by defendant no.1 has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. R. S. A. No. 1723 of 2010 3 The only dispute to be determined in the lis was whether defendant no.1-appellant was tenant in the disputed property or was in unauthorized possession thereof. However, plea of the appellant regarding his alleged tenancy has been negatived in the suit filed by him. R. S. A. No. 534 of 2003, arising out of the said suit, filed by appellant Kiranjit Singh, has been dismissed for non-prosecution vide separate order of today. Consequently, finding in the said suit that appellant herein is not tenant in the disputed property has attained finality. Consequently, contention of counsel for the appellant that appellant is tenant in the disputed property cannot be accepted. On the other hand, respondent no.1-plaintiff, being owner of the suit property, has been rightly granted decree for possession thereof along with use and occupation charges. There is, therefore, no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity, in the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to decree the suit of the plaintiff. The said finding is not based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the appeal is completely meritless. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. June 02, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE