R.S.A.No.2227 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2227 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.5.2009 Harish Chand .....Appellant Versus Municipal Committee, Rohtak and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Having lost before the Courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008 passed by the lower appellate court, affirming that of the trial Court dated 19.4.2005 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent/mandatory injunction was dismissed. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the facts according to the case of the plaintiff are that defendant No.1 was owner of plot No.11 situated at Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak, fully detailed in para 1 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) and vide resolution No. 89 dated 20.4.1969, it had auctioned the same on lease. It was pleaded that one Gian Chand was the highest bidder and was allotted the suit property on payment of rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per annum. Said Gian Chand took possession of the same after he had paid rent for a period of one year. Gian Chand could not start the business in the suit R.S.A.No.2227 of 2008 -2- property and, therefore, he gave the same to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that as payment of rent had not been made by said Gian Chand, defendant No.1 initiated proceedings under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, for his eviction and for recovery of the rent before the Collector, Rohtak. It also impleaded the plaintiff as one of the parties. Thereafter, the matter had been compromised between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had admitted him as its lessee on payment of rent at the same rate as was payable by Gian Chand. According to the plaintiff, he started making payment of rent regularly to defendant No.1 but the receipts were issued only in the name of Gian Chand. He raised construction of three shops over the suit property by incurring huge expenses and had given the same on rent to defendants No.2 to 4. Defendant No.1 vide an order dated 6.8.1993 adopted defendants No.2 to 4 as its tenants and started charging rent from them though defendants No.2 to 4 were tenants of the plaintiff who claimed himself to be the landlord of the said defendants. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was neither evicted from the suit property nor was issued any notice of ejectment. The plaintiff issued notice to defendant No.1 not to charge rent from defendants No.2 to 4 and to receive the rent from the plaintiff but defendant No.1 failed to pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff which gave rise to the filing of the present suit. The averments made in the plaint were controverted by the defendants by filing two separate written statements and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded by defendant No.1 that Gian Chand had taken possession of the suit property and started his R.S.A.No.2227 of 2008 -3- business but he never gave the same to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that said Gian Chand had divided the suit property into three parts in the year 1993-94 and sub-let the same to defendants No.2 to 4. As per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, the lessee had no right to sub-let the lease property and defendant No.1 was competent to take action against the lessee. It was next pleaded that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property and defendants No.2 to 4 had deposited the transfer fees with defendant No.1 regarding the sub-let portion of the suit property which executed the lease deed in favour of the said defendants. It was also pleaded that the construction was made by Gian Chand being lessee and the rent was legally chargeable by defendant No.1 from defendants No.2 to 4 as they were its tenants over the suit property. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. Defendants No.2 to 4 in their joint written statement pleaded that Gian Chand had taken possession of the suit property and denied that he had given possession of the same to the plaintiff. They further pleaded that three shops were constructed over the suit property by them at their own costs and expenses and they were in physical possession of the same. According to the answering defendants, they had never taken the shops from the plaintiff on rent. They also prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.2005 holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was tenant under defendant R.S.A.No.2227 of 2008 -4- No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4 were tenants under him. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the lower appellate Court which vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008 dismissed the appeal finding no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Hence, the present regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made valiant efforts to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the findings recorded by the courts below on the basis of the evidence available on record. However, he failed to show any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The Courts below had recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff was neither proved to be in possession of the suit property nor he succeeded in proving that he had tenancy rights in respect of the suit property. Further, the courts below returned a finding that there was not an iota of evidence to show that the construction was raised by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had sub- let the shops to defendants No.2 to 4. No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. May 7, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE