RSA No.4374 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4374 of 2008. Decided on: April 29, 2011. Dr.Gobind Ram. .. Appellant VERSUS Rajesh Gupta. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Arun Abrol, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff-appellant for possession of shop in dispute filed against the defendant-respondent has been dismissed by the Courts below holding that the status of the defendant-respondent as that of a tenant, taking into consideration . . . 1 RSA No.4374 of 2008 the rent receipts EX.D1 to EX.D28, executed by Parveen Kohli, daughter-in-law of the vendor of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff- appellant. Besides this, the rent agreement dated 08.12.1993, signed by Parveen Kohli, has also been taken into consideration. There is an entry regarding the execution of said rent agreement in the record of Deed Writer (EX.D29), at Sr. No.398, dated 08.12.1993. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the entire record has been fabricated by the defendant-respondent as the signatures of seller Kundal Lal on the affidavit (EX.DW1/D) acknowledging the tenancy, did not tally with his signatures on the sale deed. EX.P1. I have considered the contention of the counsel for the appellant and I am of the opinion that in order to establish that the defendant is in occupation as a tenant, the defendant-respondent is only required to establish that he had been inducted by his landlord. In the present case, he has been able to establish his relationship to the daughter-in-law of Kundan Lal, namely Parveen Kohli wife of Sudesh Kohli as tenant. A landlord is not required to be owner of the property. On the basis of sufficient documentary evidence produced on the record, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the daughter-in-law of the original owner and the defendant-respondent stands established. A concurrent finding of fact regarding the status of the defendant-respondent as tenant has been arrived at by the Courts below. . . . 2 RSA No.4374 of 2008 In view of said circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the said finding of fact in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. No substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed. However, nothing mentioned by this Court or by the Courts below will prejudice the rights of the appellant to seek eviction of the defendant-respondent in accordance with law. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 29, 2011. rka . . . 3