Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.07.2009 Jaspreet Singh son of Ajit Singh son of Munsha Singh r/o Mohalla Mata Rani, H. No. 55, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. ..... Appellant. Versus Manoj Kumar son of Sunder Dass son of Narain Dass, r/o Model Town, Samrala Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. ..... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:-Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2006, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Khanna, vide which it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, for permanent injunction and the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008, Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 2 rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which it dismissed the appeal. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the decision of appeal, are that the plaintiff (now appellant) claimed himself that he took the shop, in question, on rent, at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, on 15.03.2001, and a writing to this effect was executed. It was stated that he was carrying on the business, in the shop, in question, under the name and style of M/s Janta Motor Store. It was further stated that about a month before the filing of the suit, the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff, from the shop, in question. It was further stated that the defendant was requested, so many times, not to do so, but to no avail. On his final refusal to desist from his illegal designs, left with no alternative, a suit for permanent injunction was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing written statement. He pleaded therein, that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was not Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 3 maintainable. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands, as he suppressed the material facts. It was stated that plaintiff was never inducted as a tenant in the shop, in question. It was further stated that the plaintiff and defendant had cordial relations. It was further stated that the plaintiff was in need of money and approached Canara Bank, Khanna, for advancement of loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was further stated that, at that time, the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute a rent note, regarding the shop, in question, so that he may show the same to the Bank authorities, for getting the aforesaid loan. It was further stated that the defendant reposing confidence, in the plaintiff, executed the rent note dated 15.03.2001, although it was never acted upon, but it was a mere paper transaction. It was further stated that the plaintiff failed to obtain the loan, from the bank and, as such, he executed an agreement dated 20.04.2001, whereby he admitted the rent note as a paper transaction only. It was further stated that in fact the father of the defendant was working, as a private accountant, and was also Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 4 running an Accountancy College under the name and style of 'Excellent Computers and Accounts College'. It was further stated that telephone no.32247 was also installed in the shop, in question. However, the remaining averments were denied. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were framed, by the trial Court:- “1- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2- Whether the suit is not maintainable in present form ?OPD 3- Whether the plaintiffs has no locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD 4- Relief.” 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. The trial Court after hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, came to the conclusion, that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the property, in dispute, as a tenant. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 5 6. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2006, passed by the trial Court, the defendant-appellant filed an appeal, before the Appellate Court, at Ludhiana, which vide its judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008 dismissed the same. 7. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed, by the appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that both the Courts below, fell into a grave error in coming to the conclusion, that the plaintiff was not inducted as a tenant in the shop, in dispute. He further submitted that the possession of the plaintiff, as a tenant, over the shop, in dispute, was proved through cogent, and convincing evidence, produced by him, but the Courts below, completely mis-read the same and, as such, recorded perverse findings, that he was not in possession of the shop in question, as a tenant. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 6 of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Since the plaintiff claimed that he is a tenant in the shop in question, at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-, it was for him to prove his tenancy. Sher Singh, (PW-2), examined by the plaintiff, during the course of cross-examination, stated that he had not seen the shop, in question. Under these circumstances, he did not know as to who was in possession of the shop, in question. Kashmira Singh, (PW-3), during the course of cross-examination, stated that he had not seen the plaintiff in possession of the shop, in question. Anil Kumar, (PW-4), Clerk of the Bank, stated with regard to the advancement of loan, in favour of the plaintiff. Narinder Kumar, (PW-5), Document Writer, Ajit Singh, (PW-6) and Surinderpal Singh, (PW-7), who supplied the goods to the plaintiff, stated that no shop number, on the bills, was written. Jasprit Singh, plaintiff, Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 7 himself, during the course of cross-examination, stated that the electric connection of the shop, in question, was in the name of his father. He also stated that he paid the electricity bill, but could not produce any receipt regarding the same. He further stated that telephone no. 232247 was installed in the demised premises, but the same was locked and he did not use the same. He further stated that he paid the telephone bills, but he was unable to produce any receipt regarding payment. He was unable to state as to who were the persons, who were having shops in the neighbourhood. No books of accounts were also produced by the plaintiff, to prove that actually, he was in possession of the shop, in question and was carrying on the business therein. The case, set up by defendant, to the effect, that the rent note, which was executed, was at the asking of the plaintiff, as he wanted to obtain loan from the bank and had to show the same to the bank authorities. On the basis of that document, no possession of the shop in question, was given to the plaintiff, and that document was cancelled, vide agreement dated 20.04.2001. Manoj Kumar, Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 8 (DW-1) and Jaswant Singh, Advocate,(DW-2) as also Krishan Kumar,(DW-3) marginal witnesses of the said agreement, proved the execution and cancellation thereof. No doubt, the Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert was produced by the plaintiff, who stated that the questioned signatures on the agreement, did not tally with the specimen signatures of the plaintiff. However, in view of the cogent, and convincing ocular evidence, produced by the defendant, that the said agreement was executed by the plaintiff and bore his signatures, the report of the Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, was of no consequence as the science with regard to the identification of handwriting, is not conclusive. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that the plaintiff was never inducted, as a tenant, in the shop, in question, nor was put in possession thereof, and, as such, was not entitled to the injunction, prayed for, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and, thus, warrant no interference. The judgments and decrees of the Regular Second Appeal No.1330 of 2009 9 Courts below, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 11. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands dismissed with costs. ( Sham Sunder ) July 17, 2009 Judge dinesh