IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** RSA No. 2378 of 2006 Date of decision: 17.1.2008 Bhudev Singh --- Appellant Versus Vishnu Kumar --- Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is defendant’s second appeal against whom a decree for possession in respect of the premises in dispute was passed by the trial court which was affirmed by the first appellate court. Plaintiff-Vishnu Kumar filed a suit for possession against the present appellant on the averments that the shop in dispute was owned by him which was given on rent to the defendant at the monthly rental of Rs. 500/- vide rent note dated 6.12.2000. Tenancy of the defendant was terminated vide notice dated 28.2.2002 as the defendant had not paid rent from 31.1.2001 to 28.2.2002. Plaintiff also claimed mesne profits for the period 1.3.2002 to 31.8.2002 for use and occupation of the premises in dispute. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff. It was stated that shop was initially rented out on 21.8.1999 at a monthly rental of Rs. 300/- and thereafter another rent note was executed on 6.12.2000. It was denied that tenancy had expired. Before the trial court, execution of rent note dated 6.12.2000 was not disputed. The Trial court returned a finding that the defendant did not make payment of mesne profits for use and occupation of the shop from 1.3.2002 to RSA No. 2378 of 2006 31.8.2002. It was held that the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f. 1.3.2002. The defendant was held entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 3,000/- on account of use and occupation of the building after termination of tenancy for a period of six months i.e. 1.3.2002 to 31.8.2002 and thereafter also, at the same rate, till the vacation of the building. Suit was consequently decreed and decree in terms of the above was passed. The aforesaid findings were affirmed by the first appellate court on appeal carried by the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is revealed from the record that the findings recorded by the courts below are concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, oral as well as documentary. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued in favour of invalidation of the said findings, but he, either by reference to any material on record or otherwise, could not point out any error on the face of the findings or perversity therein so as to persuade this Court to interfere therewith. The appellate court has elaborately considered all aspects and thereupon turned down the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. There being nothing contrary to law or wrong anything in the findings returned, there is no merit in the appeal. No sub substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) January 19, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 2