Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs Mohan Lal on 5 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000542
RSA-4196 of 2015(O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:000542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4196 of 2015(O&M)
Date of Order:05.01.2024
Ram Kumar
.Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate
for the respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana
and Union Territory, Chandigarh, is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab
Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi
(Dead) through LRs vs. Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC 157.
2. In this regular second appeal, the findings of fact arrived at by
the First Appellate Court are assailed by the defendant.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a shop by redemption
of a registered mortgage deed dated 19.12.1996, and also a supplementary
mortgage deed dated 10.05.2000. While contesting the suit, the appellant
(defendant) claimed that he is in possession of the property as tenant.
Though, the trial court dismissed the suit, however, on re-appreciation of the
evidence, the First Appellate Court has found that the appellant has failed to
lead any material evidence to prove that there existed a landlord-tenant
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000542
RSA-4196 of 2015(O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:000542
relationship and the mortgage deed was executed only to camouflage the
existence of landlord-tenant relationship in order to avoid applicability of the
provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant while referring
to the findings of the trial Court submits that the First Appellate Court has
wrongly reversed the trial court's judgment and decree. He submits that the
terms of the mortgage deed are akin to a rent deed and therefore, the First
Appellate Court has erred in accepting the appeal.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondent submits that the appellant (defendant) has failed to lead any
reliable evidence to prove that there was relationship of the landlord and the
tenants between the parties. He submits that neither any rent note nor the
receipts proving the monthly payment of rent has been produced. He further
submits that the appellant has not produced any other cogent evidence to
prove the relationship of the landlord and the tenant.
7. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. On appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court has
taken a plausible view while accepting the appeal. In absence of substantive
error or perversity in the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, this
court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts
Act, 1918, is not expected to interfere.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000542
RSA-4196 of 2015(O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:000542
10. Dismissed.
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
January 05, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000542
3 of 3
