R.S.A.No. 1731 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1731 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.10.2009 Shyam Lal ......Appellant Versus Satyanarian and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs (legal representatives of Pehlad) filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 9.12.2005. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 22.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal by plaintiff No.2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Plaintiff Pehlad Singh has brought suit for R.S.A.No. 1731 of 2009 (O&M) 2 permanent as well as mandatory injunction with the averments that the plaintiff is tenant in a kothri (shop) shown by ABCDEFGH in the site plan attached with the plaint and he is doing the Halwai work in this premises. In front of the kothri the plaintiff has constructed Bhatti for preparing sweets etc. and he has put tin shed over it. Earlier disputed site was taken by the plaintiff on lease from defendant No.3 and now defendant No.1 has purchased the disputed site along with other property from defendant No.3 and now the defendants in collusion with each other want to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Earlier also plaintiff Pehlad had filed a suit against Municipal Committee and the same was dismissed to the extent that the plaintiff has no concern with site of the Bhatti. It is pleaded that disputed site is not a part of the property purchased by defendant No.1 from defendant No.3 on 9.7.1986 but despite that defendants want to oust for plaintiff forcibly. Hence, this suit . During the pendency of suit, Pehlad died and his legal representatives were brought on record. 3. The suit has been contested by defendant No.1. It is pleaded by defendant No.1 that Pehlad had taken a kothri beneath the stair of 9 ft. x 7 ft. on lease from Municipal Committee for one ear but the vacant site R.S.A.No. 1731 of 2009 (O&M) 3 in front of kothri or Chabutra or tin shed was never let out to Pehlad by the Municipal Committee and he had no concern with the site in front of kothri and he has no right to put tin shed over it and to construct his Bhatti. It is pleaded that defendant No.1 has purchased the disputed kothri along with other properties from Municipal Committee vide sale deed No.917 dated 6.7.1986 for Rs.1,80,000/-. Defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to vacant the kothri. It is pleaded that in front of kothri there is site of defendant No.1 and after that there is common passage and as such there is no question to put Bhatti in from of kothri. Preliminary objections, with regard to maintainability of suit in present form and cause of action have also been taken . It is pleaded that suit be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is tenant in possession on the suit shop? OPP 2. Whether the defendants are intending to forcibly eject plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP 4. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present R.S.A.No. 1731 of 2009 (O&M) 4 form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed by the trial Court to the effect that the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the kothri shown in the site plan except in due course of law. The plaintiffs were also entitled to use the land situated between their kothri and the Municipal road, towards its Eastern side, but they were held not entitled to cover the said portion or to raise permanent construction thereon. The appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff No.2 against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Now plaintiff No.2 has filed this regular second appeal. There is no dispute that the kothri in question was let out by Municipal Committee to Pehlad and further defendant No.1 purchased the same along with the other plots from the Municipal Committee. Defendant No.1 is the owner of the kothri in dispute. Civil suit No.636 of 1990 was filed by Pehlad against Municipal Committee for permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute. The said suit was decreed in favour of Pehlad regarding R.S.A.No. 1731 of 2009 (O&M) 5 the kothri and the suit regarding tin shed and platform (Chabutra) and Bhatti in front of the kothri was dismissed. Since the plaintiffs are tenant under defendant No.1, the Courts below rightly held that they were only entitled to use the land between the kothri and the Municipal road but were not entitled to cover the said portion by a tin shed as the said portion was owned by the Municipal Committee and was part of public passage/road. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 30, 2009 anita