RSA No.2965 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2965 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Smt.Prabhati Devi .....Appellant v. Municipal Committee Narnaul and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No8197-C of 2011. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2965 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.3.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 5.4.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents-Municipal Committee from interfering in the tenancy rights of the plaintiff over the shops in dispute on the plea that she used to pay tehbazari @ of 25 paise per sq.feet and that the same was RSA No.2965 of 2011(O&M) -2- taken on tehbazari by her husband and her brother-in-law and that however, after death of her husband Jagmal, she came in possession of the same as a tenant. Further plea has been taken that respondents-defendants demanded tehbazari @ Rs.2/- per sq.feet and later on they have started demanding tehbazari @ Rs.10/- per sq.feet. On notice being issued to the respondent-defendants, plea was taken that the property in dispute was given on tehbazari to Prahlad @ 25 paise per sq.feet, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2/- per sq.feet and thereafter enhanced to Rs.10/- per sq.feet and, however, as appellant- plaintiff is in arrears of tehbazari and hence tehbazari has been cancelled by virtue of notice No.108 TC dated 2.7.2003. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties dismissed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that tehbazari of appellant-plaintiff has been cancelled without any notice and hence, it is contended that she is having right to remain in possession of the same. However, plea cannot be accepted. Admittedly, appellant- plaintiff came in possession of the property in dispute on tehbazari taken from respondents-Municipal Committee and hence, she is in possession only as a licencee. She is having no right to remain in possession. License can be revoked by the licencor at any time. Merely because at one time, the property in dispute was given on tehbazari by Municipal Committee to present appellant-plaintiff, it cannot be said that any legal right has been RSA No.2965 of 2011(O&M) -3- conferred upon her and that respondents-Municipal Committee cannot cancel the licence. Moreover, appellant-plaintiff is in arrears of payment of tehbazari. She has also not adhered to terms and conditions of tehbazari. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 26.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge