RSA Nos. 569, 570, 571 and 1 575 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of decision:- 20.10.2011 (1) RSA No. 569 of 2010 (O&M) Om Parkash ....Appellant Vs. Gokal Chand and others ....Respondents (2) RSA No. 570 of 2010 (O&M) Smt. Kaushlya Devi and another ....Appellants Vs. Gokal Chand and others ....Respondents (3) RSA No. 571 of 2010 (O&M) Rajesh ....Appellant Vs. Gokal Chand and others ....Respondents (4) RSA No. 575 of 2010 (O&M) Subhash Chand ....Appellant Vs. Gokal Chand and others ....Respondents RSA Nos. 569, 570, 571 and 2 575 of 2010 (O&M) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 569 to 571 & 575 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the cases. For reference, facts are taken from Regular Second Appeal No. 569 of 2010. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 01.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, dismissing appeals preferred by the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred as 'the appellants') against the judgment dated 13.05.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari and different judgments dated 15.05.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred as 'the respondents') for possession and recovery. At the motion stage on 08.02.2010, learned counsel for the appellant(s) did not press the appeal on merits, but hoped that there could be compromise between the parties, if notices were issued to the respondents, as he was willing to pay the market rent. The order dated 08.02.2010 is reproduced as under:- “Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. C.M. No.1589-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.1590-C of 2010 Application is allowed. Annexure A/1 is taken RSA Nos. 569, 570, 571 and 3 575 of 2010 (O&M) on record. R.S.A. No.569 of 2010 Learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not wish to press the instant appeal on merits and confines his prayer only to the limited extent that he is willing to pay the market rent, which is prevailing today, to the respondents, if they are agreeable, for the simple reason that he is in possession of the shop for the last 50 years. Notice of motion for 18.03.2010 qua the aforesaid limited extent only.” (MAHESH GROVER) 8.2.2010 JUDGE Today, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the respondents are not agreeable to accept any amount of rent from the appellants, as they are bad tenants. He has further stated that the order passed against the appellants and the mesne profits is quite valid. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that the appeals were not pressed by the appellants on merits. Even otherwise, both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and the judgments are quite well founded and well reasoned. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) October 20, 2011 JUDGE ajp