R.S.A. No. 3926 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3926 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.1.2010 Pal Singh .......... Appellant Versus Komal Singh & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of two regular second appeals i.e. R.S.A. Nos. 3926 & 3928 of 2009 titled Pal Singh Vs. Komal Singh & another, arising out of the same transaction between the parties. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 3926 of 2009. The plaintiff / respondents filed a suit for possession of land measuring 16K-7M, situated in the area of Rani Wala, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, on the basis of ownership. The plaintiffs brought a suit on the pleadings, that Tej Kaur, widow of Arjun Singh was the owner of the suit land, and during her life time she executed a registered Will in favour of Waryam Singh. The challenge to the Will was rejected upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The case of the plaintiffs was, that defendant Pal Singh illegally and forcibly took the possession of the suit land, and dispossessed the R.S.A. No. 3926 of 2009 2 plaintiffs from the suit land, therefore, plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the land. The defendant / appellant contested the suit by taking a plea, that he was tenant over the property in dispute, and also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from dispossessing him from the land in dispute except with due process of law. The decree passed in the suit for permanent injunction is subject matter in RSA No. 3928 of 2009. On appreciation of evidence the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that plaintiffs were owners of the suit land, therefore, were entitled to get the possession from the defendant, whereas in the suit filed by the appellant a concurrent finding has been recorded, that he has failed to prove, that he was tenant over the property in dispute, and entitled to protection against dispossession. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable ? 2. Whether a tenant could be dispossessed by filing a simple suit for possession without terminating his tenancy? In support of the substantial questions of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the learned Courts below have failed to notice, that the appellant / defendant was in possession of the suit land , which was by way of tenancy, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondents was not competent. It is further the case of the appellant that it is well settled law, R.S.A. No. 3926 of 2009 3 that a tenant cannot be evicted except by following due process of law, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below in both the cases, deserves to be set aside. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the plaintiff / respondents were the owner of the land, and were illegally dispossessed by the appellant. It was also held, that the appellant has failed to prove his tenancy over the land in dispute. The concurrent finding of facts recorded on the basis of appreciation of evidence are not open to challenge in regular second appeal, unless there is any perversity in the findings. No such perversity could be pointed out. The suit for possession was therefore competent and was rightly decreed. The appellant failed to prove that he was tenant to claim protection against dispossession. The substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 20.1.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE