Regular Second Appeal No. 1173 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1173 of 2010 Date of decision : June 30, 2010 Dilbagh Singh ....Appellant versus Vijay Kumar Jain ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GS Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by landlord Dilbagh Singh having remained partly un-successful in both the courts below. Suit was filed by respondent Vijay Kumar Jain against appellant for permanent injunction alleging that the plaintiff is tenant in the disputed shop under the defendant but the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly, illegally and to demolish the disputed shop. The defendant also threatened to raise construction over the roof of the disputed shop. The plaintiff accordingly claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiff's possession over the disputed shop and from demolishing the same in any manner and from raising any construction over the disputed shop or its terrace. Regular Second Appeal No. 1173 of 2010 -2- The defendant in his written statement admitted the plaintiff to be tenant in possession in the disputed shop. The defendant however alleged that the plaintiff had executed rent note wherein it is recited that the plaintiff would have no right over the roof of the disputed shop and the plaintiff would not object to raising of construction by the defendant on the first floor. The plaintiff was pleaded to be not in possession of the roof of the shop nor the roof is part of tenancy. The defendant claimed himself to be in possession of the roof. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 17.2.2007 partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the disputed shop and from causing any damage to the same illegally or forcibly except in due course of law. However, plaintiff's prayer for restraining defendant from raising construction over the disputed shop or its terrace has been declined. First appeal preferred by the defendant-landlord has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the courts below have not recorded any finding as to whether rent note dated 1.1.1990 set up by the defendant was a genuine document executed by the plaintiff as pleaded by the defendant or was a forged and fabricated Regular Second Appeal No. 1173 of 2010 -3- document as alleged by the plaintiff. I find no merit in the contention because no such finding was required to be recorded in the instant case because any such finding would have no bearing on the ultimate fate of the suit. If the said rent note is assumed to be genuine document even then the relief granted to the plaintiff by the courts below had to be granted to him. Conversely if the rent note was found to be forged and fabricated even then the relief granted by the courts below had to be granted by the courts below. Thus, recording of any finding regarding rent note would have been irrelevant and un-necessary for the decision of the suit. Consequently, omission to record any finding regarding the rent note by the courts below is immaterial and has no bearing on the result of the instant litigation. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The relief has been granted by the courts below to the plaintiff in view of admitted position. Consequently, there is no merit in the second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) June 30, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'