RSA No.4443 of 2003 [ 1 ] In the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 02.04.2008. Bhupinder Kumar ... Appellants Versus Nagar Panchayat, Baghapurana and others ... Respondents. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.BS Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Alok Jain,Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Unsuccessful plaintiff has come up in the present Regular Second Appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining Nagar Panchayat, Baghapurana, District Moga and the Executive Officer of the said Panchayat from evicting him from the shop allegedly in possession of the plaintiff-appellant on tehbazari. The respondents pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant is neither in possession nor any shop was given to him on tehbazari, though it is stated that the shop was allotted to Babu Ram, Contractor, in the year 1998-99 for a period of one year from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999, on licence basis. The Contractor had the right to give it to Sub Contractor. Again in the year 1999-2000 in the public auction, a contract for Rs.7,05,000/- was given to Jaswinder Singh RSA No.4443 of 2003 [ 2 ] licencee. The plaintiff was a Sub Contractor of Jaswinder Singh. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP 2. Relief. While considering issue No.1, the learned trial Court returned a finding that though the plaintiff has been able to establish that he is using the shop in dispute, but his status is that of a Sub Contractor and he has no right to continue in possession of the shop in dispute. The learned trial Court also refused to rely upon a receipt Ex.P-2 produced by the plaintiff to show that he was was paying the liecence fee even after the filing of the suit, it has been specifically held by the learned trial Court that receipt does not indicate that the same is for the shop in dispute. Accordingly,the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16.02.2002. An appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge, Moga, also resulted in dismissal of the same vide his judgment and decree dated 04.09.2003. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal is that both the learned Courts below have wrongly ignored the receipt. From the reading of the receipt, it appears that it can not be linked with the shop in dispute and both the learned Courts below have rightly declined to rely upon the receipt in question. The other RSA No.4443 of 2003 [ 3 ] contention is that the appellant is in possession of the shop in dispute as lincencee as observed by the learned Courts below. Be that as it may, even if the appellant is a licencee and the licence granted to the original licencee was for a period of one year, the appellant cannot seek any protection as he has got no right to remain in possession. Otherwise also, no injunction can be granted against a true owner unless the party in possession has a right to possession. No substantial question of law arises. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 02.04.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? / NO