RSA No. 1760 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1760 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.4.2011. Balwan Singh .......Appellant Vs. Hoshiar Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was an employee of Haryana Concast Limited Hisar (hereinafter referred as HCL). The house No. 26 was allotted to the plaintiff on 10.12.1985 by Labour Inspector, Hisar on a monthly rent of ` 18.75 ps. Plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the house in question on 20.1.2005 by the defendant. On 7.7.2004, it was decided by the district level committee, headed by Deputy Commissioner, Hisar to allot the house No. 26 to the plaintiff for a consideration of ` 3300/- and a conveyance deed was duly got registered in favour of the plaintiff on 25.10.2004. Plaintiff had become owner of the house in dispute in terms of the said conveyance deed. The defendant was a friend of the plaintiff and RSA No. 1760 of 2011 (O&M) -2- had been allowed to stay in the house in question for few days by the plaintiff on friendly basis. The defendant with malafide intention had got a ration card and voter card issued in his name and by showing the house in dispute as his residential house. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that he was owner of the house in dispute for the last 12-13 years. Defendant had taken the house on rent from the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant has illegally occupied the house of the plaintiff having no. 26 Government Colony, Mirjapur road, Hisar which was owned by the plaintiff as per deed of conveyance dated 25.10.2004 executed by labour and conciliation officer, Hisar in favour of plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of possession along with belonging inside the house? OPP 3. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the defendant, by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2001. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. RSA No. 1760 of 2011 (O&M) -3- The dispute in the present case relates to house No. 26. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had forcibly occupied the house in dispute, whereas the case of the defendant is that he had taken the house in dispute on rent from the plaintiff. The defendant, however, failed to establish his plea that he had taken the house in question on rent. Defendant could not produce on record any rent deed or receipt qua the payment of rent. The plaintiff, on the other hand, proved on record the allotment letter vide which house No. 26 was allotted to him. The conveyance deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff qua the house in dispute, after he had paid ` 3300/-. As per the survey reports, plaintiff was found to be in possession of the house in dispute and thereafter, it was allotted to him. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 20, 2011 Gurpreet