IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: Civil Revision No.5743 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 24-04-2009 Tek Chand .......Petitioner versus Punjab Wakf Board ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondent. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment against the petitioner-defendant and also claimed recovery of use and occupation charges @ 568/- p.m. from the date of filing of the suit till the ejectment of the petitioner. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the petitioner-defendant. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner-defendant has filed the present Civil Revision. The first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land, in question, was leased out by the Punjab Wakf Board, in favour of Balwant Singh and Kikkar Singh sons of Roshan Singh. The petitioner has purchased the possessory right from Balwant Singh. Still, aforementioned Balwant Singh and Kikkar Singh were not impleaded as Civil Revision No.5743 of 2007 -2- defendants along with the petitioner in the Civil Suit filed by the Punjab Wakf Board for possession by way of ejectment. Hence, the suit should be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the pleadings and evidence, it is seen that in para No.2, on merits of the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant, he has admitted that the plot in dispute is the part of khasra No.300. The fact that whether the plot in dispute is a part of khasra No.300 of Village Mangala is owned by the Punjab Wakf Board or not, is evident from the copy of the jamabandis in the year 1995-96. The plaintiff-respondent is also shown as owner of the land of the said khasra as per Exhibit P-4 which is a Sunni Wakfs. In fact, the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent is not in dispute. The only argument is that Balwant Singh and Kikkar Singh were the lessees of the Wakf Board and they had taken the possessory right from it. No evidence has been produced to show that Balwant Singh and Kikkar Singh had a right to further lease out or hand over the possession of the said plot to anyone. In the circumstances, the status of petitioner-defendant is not more than a trespasser. Being trespasser in the suit land, it was not necessary to implead Balwant Singh and Kikkar Singh as necessary parties. Even otherwise, no law has been cited to show that it was necessary to implead the lessee as a necessary party when a suit for possession by way of ejectment is being filed against a trespasser. Once, the ownership of the plaintiff on the plot of the defendant as well as the un-authorised possession of the defendant is proved on record, the decree of possession is legal. Civil Revision No.5743 of 2007 -3- The second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was in possession only of 300 sq. yards, whereas, the recovery of use and occupation charges @ 568/- p.m have been passed for 568/- sq. yards. There is nothing on record and no evidence has been adduced to show or prove that only 300 sq. yards of Khasra no.300 of Village Mangala was in his possession and not 568 sq. yards. Having gone through the pleadings, I do not find any specific denial before the trial Court or mention either in the written statement or in the evidence that only 300 sq. yards was in his possession and not 568 sq. yards nor any such issue is framed before the trial Court. No other argument was raised. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE 24-04-2009 gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No