IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2124 of 1984 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.3.2010 Darshan Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. ....... Appellant through Shri Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus Kushat Ashram (Regd.),Leper Colony,Ludhiana. ....... Respondent through Shri Anish Setia, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.6741 of 2007 The application is allowed and the substantial questions of law as framed therein by the counsel for the appellants are taken on record. R.S.A.No.2124 of 1984 This appeal has been preferred by the defendant. He is aggrieved by the findings recorded in judgments dated 30.11.1982 and 1.8.1984 passed respectively by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court'). R.S.A.No.2124 of 1984 (O&M) -2- .... The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for possession of property bearing No.B.XIV.160 situated in Prem Nagar, Islam Ganj, Ludhiana. It was alleged that the suit property belonged to Punjab Walf Board which was leased to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.20/- per month. It was pleaded that after taking the vacant land on lease, the plaintiff had constructed a building including the building in dispute and rented out the same in 1971 to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. To seek the possession of the suit property, the plaintiff had earlier resorted to the proceedings under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short, `the Act') in which the defendant had denied the status of the plaintiff as landlord and also pleaded that he is not the tenant. The plaintiff thereafter withdrew those proceedings and filed the instant suit for possession and pleaded that the defendant by his conduct had forfeited his tenancy rights and was in unauthorised possession of the suit property. The defendant, in his written statement, pleaded that he was in possession of the suit property for the last more than 15 years and that he had become owner thereof by way of adverse possession. Rest of the averments of the plaintiff were also denied and a number of objections were taken by the defendant. The following issues were framed by the trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is registered society and Madhu Sudan is authorised to file the suit?OPP 2. Whether the property in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff R.S.A.No.2124 of 1984 (O&M) -3- .... by the Punjab Wakf Board as alleged in the plaint?OPP 3. Whether the defendant took the property in dispute on rent from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint?OPP 4. If issue no.3 is not proved, whether the defendant is in illegal possession of the property in dispute as alleged in the plaint?OPP 5. Whether the defendant is in the possession of the property for the last 15 years without interruption and continuously as alleged in the written statement. If so, its effect?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession?OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?OPD 8. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPP 9. Whether the defendant is estopped from raising the plea that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to hear the petition?OPP 10. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff was a lawful licencee of the suit property under the Punjab Wakf Board and the defendant was in unauthorised possession thereof. The suit was accordingly decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal which was R.S.A.No.2124 of 1984 (O&M) -4- .... also dismissed by the first appellate Court and the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed, resulting in the filing of the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant has contended that there is no material on record to show that the plaintiff was ever put in possession of the suit property and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous. He further contended that the defendant had purchased the suit property from one Satdev Bharti. In short, he had set up a counter claim of ownership, both by way of adverse possession and by way of purchase. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has pleaded that the plaintiff has successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt and consequently, the findings recorded by the Courts below are correct. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgments, as also the record, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. The defendant initially denied the tenancy which was alleged by the plaintiff in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. In view of this denial, the plaintiff successfully proved that the suit property belonged to Punjab Wakf Board and there was a valid existing lease in its favour. The official of the Punjab Wakf Board appeared as a witness at the trial to support the case of the plaintiff on this aspect of the matter. The defendant, in his pleadings,had set up a plea that he was owner of the suit property on the basis of long and continuous adverse possession. However, if the pleadings are to be seen, there is no averment as to when he entered the possession and as to when such possession became open and hostile to R.S.A.No.2124 of 1984 (O&M) -5- .... the true owner. It is a settled proposition of law that when a plea of adverse possession is raised, such particulars have to be pleaded and proved. There is, thus, no substance in the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant. Strangely enough, the witnesses produced by the defendant had deposed that the suit property was purchased by him from one Sat Dev Bharti, but no sale deed was produced on record and thus, this plea is of no consequence. Even otherwise, this evidence could not have been looked into even if it had been on record for the simple reason that there was no pleading to that effect. That apart, the plea of ownership and adverse possession are mutually destructive pleas which cannot be permitted to be taken. Looking at it from any angle, the pleas raised by the plaintiff are failing pleas. In view of the fact that there is a valid lease deed existing in favour of the plaintiff, it was very well within its right to seek possession of the suit property in order to enjoy the fruits of a validly executed lease deed in its favour by the Punjab Wakf Board. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law which arises for consideration of this Court and the appeal, for the reasons which have been stated above, is dismissed. March 12,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge