R.S.A.NO.1770 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.NO.1770 of 2006 Date of decision:31st August, 2009 Vijay Singh .....Appellant Versus Banwari Lal and others .....Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gulab Singh Malik, Advocate for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Mr. J.R.Syal, Advocate for respondent no. 6. Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 7. Rajive Bhalla, J The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 12.09.2005 and 19.01.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh and the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing his suit and his appeal respectively. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession of a varandah of Shri Vishnu Bhagwan Mandir, Dadumajra, Colony, UT Chandigarh. The appellant pleaded that he had taken the premises on rent at Rs.1000/- per month for running a school under the name of Saraswati Shiksha Kendra and has already paid Rs. 10,000/- as advance rent R.S.A.NO.1770 of 2006 2 against receipt no. 946 dated 3.07.2002. The appellant prayed that defendants no. 1 to 5 be restrained from interfering in his possession. In response defendant-respondents no. 1 to 6 averred that no school much less a school, by the appellant, was running in the temple premises. It was pleaded that the appellant made an attempt to occupy a part of the Varandah at the behest of defendant-respondents no. 7 and 8, who have been ousted by the newly formed committee of the temple. It was further averred that the receipt is forged and is actually a receipt reflecting a donation to the temple. Respondents no. 7 and 8 filed a separate written statement admitting the appellant's claim. On the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD 5. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit R.S.A.NO.1770 of 2006 3 by holding that the appellant had failed to prove his possession or his status as a tenant. It was held that the receipt Ex.P-1 and the letter Ex.P-2 were irrelevant in the absence of any resolution by the managing committee or any document signed by its office bearers. It was further held that Ex.P-1, the alleged rent receipt was executed by one, Pushpa Devi, a stranger to the society. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2006, the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the receipt Ex.P-1 and the letter Ex.P-2 clearly establish that the appellant is in possession of a verandah as a tenant. It was no part of the appellant’s duty to ascertain whether any resolution had been passed or the persons who accepted the money and issued the letter Ex.P2 were officer bearers. The appellant approached the respondent committee with an offer to open a school in a verandah. As his offer was accepted, he paid Rs.10,000/- as advance rent as reflected in the receipt Ex.P-1. It is submitted that as the receipt Ex.P-1 and the letter Ex.P-2 clearly reflect a tenancy, the fact that there is no resolution, is irrelevant. The question before the courts below was whether the appellant is in possession as a tenant or not but instead of considering the question of possession, the courts below have decided the R.S.A.NO.1770 of 2006 4 dispute on entirely irrelevant considerations. It is submitted that in view of the errors committed by the courts below, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:- 1. Whether once the factum of possession stood proved and also affirmed by the Courts below in the interim orders and by this Hon’ble Court in the civil revision filed by the appellant, the courts below could dismiss the suit on the ground that possession could not be proved? 2. Whether the Ld. Courts below have misread the evidence and drawn a conclusion which is perverse? 3. Whether the relief of permanent injunction restraining to dispossess except in accordance with law is dependent on the nature of the possession of the person seeking such relief? 4. Whether the Ld. Courts below have based their judgment and decree on conjectures and surmises? 5. Whether the Ld. Courts below could grant a relief sought by the respondents by way of filing written statement and not a regular suit or raising a counter claim? Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that apart from the fact that the documents Ex.P-1 and P-2, do not bear the signatures of any office bearer of the R.S.A.NO.1770 of 2006 5 committee and are not supported by any resolution, as prescribed by the rules and regulations, the appellant has failed to prove his possession whether as a tenant or in any other capacity. It is submitted that as the appellant has failed to establish his tenancy, even if it were to be held that he is in possession, he is not entitled to the equitable relief of a permanent injunction. I have heard counsel for the parties, appraised the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and considered the substantial questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the affairs of Shri Vishnu Bhagwan Temple are managed by a registered society through a management committee and its day to day functions are governed by rules, regulations and bye-laws. As is apparent from the findings recorded by the courts below, the committee has not passed any resolution, authorizing any office bearer or other person to induct the appellant as a tenant. In the absence of any resolution, the documents Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 cannot be pressed into service by the appellant, in support of his plea that he is a tenant. It would be necessary to mention that the receipt Ex:P-1 is executed by one Pushpa Devi. The appellant has failed to adduce any evidence as to the status of Pushpa Devi in the society or in the temple or to produce Pushpa Devi as a witness. As regards the authorization letter Ex.P-2, suffice is to say that though signed by the alleged President and General R.S.A.NO.1770 of 2006 6 Secretary of the Society, the appellant has failed to prove that they were authorized by the managing committee, as required by the relevant rules and bye-laws that govern the affairs of the society. Even otherwise, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the appellant has failed to prove his possession. As regards the substantial questions of law, interim orders passed in a civil revision are irrelevant for the final out come of a suit. The plea that the courts below have misread the evidence and drawn a perverse inference are without basis. A perusal of the impugned findings does not disclose any misreading of evidence or perversity in the process of reasoning. The other questions are general in nature. The last question is that in the appellant's suit, relief has been granted to the respondent as the appellant has been prevented from running coaching classes. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees discloses that the appellant’s suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed as has his prayer that he is running a school or seeks to run coaching classes. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 31st August, 2009 SKaushik