IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** R.S.A. No. 383 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.2.2008 Ramesh Kumar --- Appellant Versus Sat Parkash and another --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. P.L. Singla, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is defendants’ second appeal impugning the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court whereby the decree of the trial court was upheld. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff Sat Parkash filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of the shop in dispute, situated in village Abheypur, District Panchkula claiming himself to be the absolute owner thereof. It was pleaded that the suit property was mortgaged with possession in favour of defendant no.1 for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 10.1.1995. It was agreed between the parties that when the mortgagor pays the mortgaged money in lump-sum, the mortgagee will deliver vacant possession of the property to him. As per terms of the mortgage, the property could not have been let out to any one, but the same was given on rent by defendant no.1 to defendant no.2. Despite plaintiff’s paying mortgage RSA No. 383 of 2008 amount and even sending legal notice, possession of the property was not handed over. The plaintiff, as a consequential relief, also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the shop in question and from letting out the same to any one. Defendant no.1 controverted the pleas of the plaintiff and stated that it was the plaintiff himself who had inducted defendant no.2 as tenant and that it was never agreed upon that as and when the whole mortgage amount is paid, the possession was to be handed over to the plaintiff. Suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 8.6.2007. Appeal against the trial court judgment and decree was dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the record. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence, recorded a finding of fact that the suit property was to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 80,000/- by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 and the said amount stood deposited. It was also held that defendant no.2 was inducted as tenant by defendant no.1. Against the judgment and decree, two appeals were preferred, one by defendant No.1 and the second by defendant No.2. Affirming the findings of the trial court, the first appellate court observed that defendant no.2 was inducted as tenant by defendant no.1 just to create obstacles in the way of the plaintiff to take possession of the suit property. It stood amply proved on record that there was no mention in the mortgage deed, Exhibit PW3/A, that the tenancy created by the mortgagee would subsist even after the redemption. It was thus observed that after the redemption of 2 RSA No. 383 of 2008 the suit property, the tenancy created by the mortgagee was to be given a go-bye. The findings of the trial court were, thus, affirmed by the first appellate court. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants to persuade this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. No substantial question of law even was shown to have arisen in the appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 5, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 3