R.S.A. No. 210 of 2003 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 210 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.2.2009 Rajinder Singh .......... Appellant Versus Hazara Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Karamvir Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 521-C of 2003 This is an application for condoning the delay of 53 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated the application is allowed. The delay of 53 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. No. 522-C of 2003 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated the application is allowed. The delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 210 of 2003 2 R.S.A. No. 210 of 2003 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 10.2.2000 and 22.5.2002 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from the premises i.e. the shop/ Khokha stands decreed. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for possession and recovering of rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month w.e.f. 1.10.1993 till the date of decree. The plaintiff brought a suit on the grounds that he was landlord of the demised premises and the defendant / appellant was in occupation of the same as tenant on payment of rent @ Rs. 300/- per month. The defendant was in arrears of rent since 1.10.1993. It was the case set up by the plaintiff that when the rent was demanded defendant / appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff admitting him to be the landlord of the demised premises. The possession of the defendant / appellant over the property was admitted by the plaintiff. The suit for injunction succeeded. The plaintiff-respondent thereafter issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to determine the lease of the defendant / appellant and thereafter filed a suit for possession. Suit was contested by taking a preliminary objection that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served and, thus, it was claimed that defendant / appellant was entitled to special costs under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. R.S.A. No. 210 of 2003 3 The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence brought on record held that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was validly issued and, therefore, decreed the suit for possession. The Court also granted decree for recovery of rent of Rs. 300/- per month w.e.f. 1.10.1993. The plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal. The findings of the learned trial Court on all issues were affirmed. However, the learned lower appellate Court rightly modified the decree with respect to the rent and restricted the arrears of rent upto 30.9.1996, as claimed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are against evidence on record and, therefore, perverse ? 2. Whether plaintiff-respondent could claim the rent for the period which stood already paid ? In support of the substantial questions of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings of the learned Courts below cannot be sustained as it is outcome of misreading of evidence brought on record. However, he has not been able to point out as to how the error was committed and which part of documentary or oral evidence was misread by the learned Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show as to how the decree for recovery of rent for the period from 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1996 is erroneous and not as per evidence brought R.S.A. No. 210 of 2003 4 on record. The concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Courts below and the error in the judgment and decree by the learned trial Court with regard to the arrears of rent already stands corrected by the learned lower appellate Court. Thus, the substantial questions of law as raised do not arise for consideration in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. 13.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE