Regular Second Appeal No.856 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.7.2010 Deepak Kumar and Lalita Devi ...Appellants Versus Sukhjinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Raj Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The epitome of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Sukhjinder Singh son of Inder Singh respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the present suit against Deepak Kumar son of and Lalita Devi widow of late Joginder Pal Verma appellant-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) for a decree of possession by way of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, inter-alia, pleading that he (plaintiff) purchased the shop in dispute, vide registered sale deed dated 27.12.2001 and since then, he is owner of the disputed shop. Joginder Pal Verma, the predecessor of the defendants, was inducted as tenant by previous owners on a monthly rent of Rs.1200/-. In the wake of death of Joginder Pal Verma, the defendants became its tenants. As the plaintiff required the shop in question for his own use, therefore, he repeatedly requested the defendants to vacate the same, but in vain. Then, the plaintiff served them with legal notices dated 14.7.2003 and 28.7.2003 (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively), by virtue of which, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, stood terminated with the expiry of fifteen days. Yet, the defendants neither vacated the disputed shop nor paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month from 1.1.2002 till the Regular Second Appeal No.856 of 2009 2 filing of the suit, amounting to Rs.22800/-. 2. Concisely, according to the plaintiff, he is owner and is entitled to the possession of the shop in dispute. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for possession by way of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, locus standi and cause of action of the plaintiff etc. The factum of tenancy was admitted. However, the rate of rent was denied by the defendants. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence, to prove their respective pleaded cases. 6. After taking into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of shop in question to him within two months, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.11.2007. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-defendants filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.8.2008. 8. Still aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the appellant-defendants filed the present appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, Regular Second Appeal No.856 of 2009 3 to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 10. However, the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants has contended with some amount of vehemence that the Courts below have misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record, so, the impugned judgments and the decrees are liable to be set aside. The argument is not tenable. 11. As is evident from the record, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that (i) the plaintiff is proved to be owner of the suit property and he has legally terminated the tenancy of the defendants by issuing notices (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5) and (ii) the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the disputed property from the defendants. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this relevant behalf. 12. All the remaining arguments pertained to appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant-defendants, are not permissible under law. No question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in this second appeal. 13. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the appellant- defendants has fairly acknowledged that he is not in a position to assail the findings of the Courts below any more, in view of section 100 CPC, but he urged that Joginder Pal Verma, the original tenant, was inducted by the vendor of the plaintiff. After the death of original tenant, the appellant-defendants are running Regular Second Appeal No.856 of 2009 4 the shop and are earning their livelihood. They have no other source of income. Defendant No.2 is an unfortunate widow of original tenant Joginder Pal Verma. Therefore, he prayed that some reasonable time be granted to the defendants to vacate the shop, so that they may re-start their business somewhere else. 14. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances projected by the learned counsel for appellants, to me, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to grant some reasonable time to enable the defendants to re- settle their shop, so that they may not die in starvation. 15. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. However, the defendants are directed to hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff on or before 31.1.2011, provided that they pay the amount of mesne profits and use of occupation of disputed shop at the rate of Rs.300/- per month, during the relevant period of six months. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 28.7.2010 Judge AS