IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.928 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 2.3.2010 Neeraj Kumar and another ....Appellants Versus Naresh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is defendants' appeal directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 27.1.2010 by which the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were reversed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of mortgage deed dated 5.7.1989. The premises in question is a shop which was mortgaged in favour of the appellants. The appellants pleaded tenancy in their favour and set up a plea that the mortgage created was a sham document in order to circumvent the provisions of the Rent Act. The learned trial Court concluded that the mortgage deed was not a valid document and in fact the status of the appellants in the premises was that of tenants. Reversing the findings in the appeal the learned first Appellate Court concluded that there was no material on record to show that at any R.S.A.No.928 of 2010 (O&M) -2- point of time the appellants had paid the rent to the respondent. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was accordingly decreed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the municipal records show the possession of the appellants as tenants in the premises and therefore from here it should have been inferred by the first Appellate Court that the status of the appellants was that of tenants in the premises. Besides, it was argued that as per the house-tax assessment entries the respondent plaintiff was assessed to house-tax by considering the rental value of the shop and a perusal of this material shows that the appellants were tenants in the shop in question which fact has been ignored by the first Appellate Court. It was further contended that there are two pronotes which were executed by the respondent-plaintiff and duly admitted by him in the evidence and these pronotes were not denied by the respondent in which some amount of loan was shown to have been paid by the respondent to the appellants almost at the same time when the mortgage deed was executed. He also contended that it was not possible to believe that the respondent who had mortgaged his property would advance loan to the appellants. It was thus prayed that from here it should be inferred that the document was executed only to circumvent the provisions of the Rent Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgment. One of the foremost ingredients which should satisfy the test of a valid and existing tenancy to determine the status of a person as tenant is the rent component. The appellants pleaded that they were R.S.A.No.928 of 2010 (O&M) -3- in possession of the premises even prior to the execution of the mortgage deed dated 5.7.1989. They are involved in the business activities and are maintaining records. Not an iota of evidence has been produced by way of account books or any receipt to show that at any point of time ever since 1989 they had paid the rent to the respondent. In the absence of any such record it is difficult to believe that the status of the appellants in the premises was that of tenants. It is a settled proposition of law that the contents of the document to which the parties set their hands are to be read as it is and inference on the basis of probabilities to evaluate and establish the intent of the parties who set their hands to such a document cannot be deviated from the contents of such a document. For the aforesaid reason, nothing more can be read into the said document to accept the plea of the appellants that they are tenants on the premises especially when there is no material to indicate such tenancy in their favour except for some oral evidence. No ground to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 2.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss