R.S.A No.769 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No.769 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : November 20, 2009 Jagdish Parshad, ...... Appellant (s) v. Surender Kumar, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. O.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anjana, Advocate for the responden. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for eviction of the appellant on the ground that 10 years had not elapsed from the date of construction and, thus, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The following questions have been proposed :- R.S.A No.769 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: “ a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in view of the allegations and the material on record, the finding recorded by the learned Courts below that the premises in question were exempted from the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 can be sustained in law ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the appellant having been proved to be in possession of the shop in question since the year 1979, the civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter to pass the impugned decree for possession ? c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the respondent having withheld the best evidence, the civil Court can be said to have jurisdiction to try the present suit ? d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the alleged notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act can be said to be legal ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Additionally, counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in RSA No.4835 of 2001, Ram Kumar vs Amarjeet Singh, decided on 18.12.2001 R.S.A No.769 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: wherein also the dispute was with regard to a group of shops which were sanctioned by the same site plan, one of which is in dispute in the present case also. In the said case, this Court has accepted the findings of the Courts below that the shop(s) were constructed in 1983. In this view of the matter, the questions proposed would have to be held against the appellant. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk'