R.S.A. No. 1681 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1681 of 2008 Date of decision: September 01, 2008 Harpal Singh and another ..Appellants v. Malkit Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. K. Laddi, Advocate for Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the appellants. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellants- plaintiffs (hereinafter described as `the plaintiffs') are before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below whereby suit for possession filed by them was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of shop bearing property No. 4275, situated at Tajpur Chowk, Raikot and for a direction to the respondents-defendants (hereinafter described as `the defendants') for handing over the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs. Further prayer was for payment of mesne profits @ Rs. 6,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.2.2001. As per the averments in the plaint, the shop was leased out to the defendants for a period of five years from January, 1996. The rate of rent was agreed to be paid @ Rs. 2,000/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 2,200/- per month w.e.f. February, 1999. As per the terms of the agreement, the shop was to be vacated on 31.1.2001 after the expiry of tenancy. The stand of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable as the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, `the Transfer of Property Act') were not applicable and the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. As the defendants claimed themselves to be the tenants, it was submitted that it will R.S.A. No. 1681 of 2008 [2] be the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, `the Rent Act') which shall be applicable. On the issue as to whether the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the Rent Act would be applicable, the learned trial Court, while interpreting the provisions of the lease deed, opined that it would be the provisions of the Rent Act which shall be applicable and further that no order regarding mesne profits could be passed under the Rent Act. The view expressed by the learned trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court holding that the plaintiffs could only invoke the provisions of the Rent Act to claim the possession of the shop and the suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs could not point out any illegality in the judgments of the Courts below where, on interpretation of the lease deed, it was opined that the same was in fact, a rent note where the defendants were tenants in the premises in question. As the property was situated within the municipal limits, it was opined that it was only the provisions of the Rent Act which shall be applicable and not the Transfer of Property Act. The findings recorded by the Courts below are plain and simple findings of fact on interpretation of the document in question which do not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 01, 2008. mk