IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 437 of 2009 Date of decision: 23-1-2009 Mohd. Ahsan … Appellant versus Shanti Devi … Respondent THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The instant Regular Second Appeal is being preferred by the defendant who has concurrently lost before the Courts below in the suit for permanent injunction, subsequently amended to one for mandatory injunction, wherein a direction has been given to the defendant to hand over vacant possession to the respondent-plaintiff within two months of the decree. The case of the plaintiff in the amended plaint was that she is owner in possession of shop No. 7 which forms part of khasra No. 50, killa No.2/1/1 situated within the revenue estate of village Gonchi wherein her son is running Denting and Painting shop. Defendant many a times asked her(plaintiff) to sell the shop to him and on one of the occasions, the plaintiff had to move an application to the police in this regard but no action was taken. This necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction but during the pendency of the said suit, forcible possession of the suit property was taken by the defendant and this led to amendment of the plaint to that of mandatory injunction. The stand of the defendant in the written statement was that he is a tenant in the shop with effect from November, 1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- and against payment of Rs.10,000/- as cash security and rather, on one occasion, the Municipal Corporation had challaned him for running a meat shop and in that regard, relied upon notice Exhibit DW-3/A. Both the Courts below while decreeing the suit of the R.S.A. No. 437 of 2009 -2- plaintiff have concurrently held that the defendant who had taken the plea that he was a tenant in the disputed shop has not been able to substantiate the same and thus, failed to discharge the onus placed upon him. It has also been found that the defendant did not produce any receipt to prove that he paid Rs.10,000/- as advance at the time of taking the shop on rent; rather it was held that it is not believable that the defendant would pay Rs.10,000/- in cash as security amount and not take any receipt in token thereof, particularly when the rent, as stated by him, was just Rs.500/- per month. He was also found not able to connect Ex.DW-3/A with the property in dispute. The Courts below have concluded that there is not even an iota of evidence led by the defendant to show that he had taken the property on rent and thus, utterly failed to prove his tenancy. Thus, the Courts below have rightly held his possession over the suit property as unauthorized and ordered restoration of possession. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 23, 2009 JUDGE JS