RSA No.2395 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2395 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.10.2010 Phool Chand Aggarwal ......Appellant(s) Versus Om Parkash and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.7155-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 46 days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2395 of 2010 (O&M) The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed the present suit alleging therein that he is the tenant in the demised premises and therefore, he has a right to protect his possession and he can be dispossessed only in accordance with law. The averment regarding the tenancy of the appellant was denied by the defendant-respondents. The relationship of landlord and tenant was specifically denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction sought? OPP RSA No.2395 of 2010 (O&M) 2 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the defendants No.5 and 6 have no concern with the suit property and its effect? OPD 4. Relief.” No other issue was claimed by the parties. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that he is in possession of the suit property and he can be evicted only in accordance with law. It was also observed that from the evidence on record, it cannot be inferred that the appellant was a tenant under the respondents. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court for modification of the trial Court decree seeking declaration to the effect that his possession be protected as a tenant, however, the said appeal was dismissed. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that once a finding has been recorded in favour of the appellant that he was in possession, a declaration regarding his tenancy which has been proved on record should have been granted in his favour. The aforesaid argument is without any merit. While upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Lower Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a concurrent finding that the appellant failed to prove his status as a tenant. Tenancy is a positive act and it cannot be proved merely by possession of someone on the premises. In this case, both the Courts have recorded a finding that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof and has failed to show that he was in possession as a tenant. Even the pleadings in this RSA No.2395 of 2010 (O&M) 3 regard are vague. The plaint is totally silent about the creation/start of tenancy in favour of the appellant and the fact as to by whom he was put into possession as tenant. In view of the aforesaid factual position, no interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. No other point was urged. Accordingly, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. October 4, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE