Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh And Anr vs Mohd Shakil And Ors on 1 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029790
2024:PHHC:029790
RSA-1197-2021 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
115 RSA-1197-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.03.2024.
Ravinder Singh and another ...Appellants.
Versus
Mohd. Shakil and others ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by
appellants/ defendants No.3 and 4 against the concurrent findings recorded
by both the Courts below vide which the suit of the plaintiff was partly
decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case as per plaint are that the plaintiff is
tenant in the shop in dispute under defendants No.1 and 2 (respondents No.2
and 3 in the present appeal). Earlier the plaintiff was a tenant of two shops
of defendants No.1 and 2 but then under the pressure of defendants No.1
and 2, the plaintiff vacated the other shop, which had been given by
defendants No.1 and 2 to Gulzar and now the plaintiff is tenant in
possession only in one shop which is the shop in dispute and is working
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029790
2024:PHHC:029790
RSA-1197-2021 (O&M) - 2-
there under the name and style of M/s Shakil Wood Works and is paying
rent regularly to defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff is also having the
electricity connection and he is paying the electricity consumption charges.
The electricity connection has also been used by Gulzar. It was alleged that
the police verification was also conducted in the year 2008, wherein it was
found that the plaintiff is in possession as tenant under defendants No.1 and
2. Defendants No.1 and 2 with the help of defendants No.3 and 4, who are
real sons of brother of defendant No.1 want to dispossess the plaintiff from
the shop in dispute illegally and unlawfully.
4. The suit of plaintiffs was partly decreed by the trial Court, vide
judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016. The appeal preferred by the
appellants/ defendants No.3 and 4 before the First Appellate Court was
dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020. Hence, the present
Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/ defendants No.3
and 4.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants No.3 and 4 has
contended that both the Courts below have failed to consider that the shop
in dispute is owned by the appellants/ defendants No.3 and 4, which they
have inherited from their grandmother Sarbati Devi widow of Gulab Singh
on the basis of the registered Will dated 18.03.1999 executed by her in
favour of the appellants. He has further contended that the plaintiff was
never tenant in the shop in dispute and he is in illegal and unauthorized
occupation. Though the plaintiff has come up with the specific case that he
was a tenant in the shop in dispute since 2002, but no cogent evidence has
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029790
2024:PHHC:029790
RSA-1197-2021 (O&M) - 3-
been brought on record to prove the same. The Courts below also failed to
consider the case of the appellants that the suit was collusive between the
plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 as there was a dispute between
defendants No.1 and 2 and between defendants No.3 and 4/ appellants and
that vide order dated 28.05.2009, the shop was ordered to be sealed by the
civil Court and defendants No.1 and 2 had set up the tenancy from
20.05.2009. Earlier defendants No.1 and 2 denied the claim of the tenancy
by the plaintiff, but in a collusive manner admitted the tenancy when
sufficient evidence did not come on record to support the claim of tenancy.
As the appellants/ defendants No.3 and 4 are owners of the property in
dispute, so no injunction can be issued against the true owners nor tenancy
could be held under defendants No.1 and 2. It has also not been considered
that the rent receipt produced on record is of May, 2009, when litigation
between the defendants inter-se had already started and no proof of tenancy
before the said date has been produced on record. He has contended that
judgments passed by the Courts below are erroneous, illegal and
unsustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone
through the records thoroughly.
7. The plaintiff has claimed the tenancy under defendants No.1
and 2 regarding the shop in dispute, whereas as per the appellants he is in
possession over the shop in dispute not as a tenant, rather he is illegally and
unauthorizedly occupying the shop in dispute in connivance with
defendants No.1 and 2. Defendants No.1 and 2/ respondents No.2 and 3 has
alleged that respondent No.1 is in possession over the shop in dispute as a
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029790
2024:PHHC:029790
RSA-1197-2021 (O&M) - 4-
tenant and was inducted as tenant by them. Thus, so far as possession of
respondent no.1 over the shop in dispute is concerned, it is the admitted
fact.
8. To prove his tenancy the plaintiff has placed on record the
receipt dated 20.05.2009 Ex.P2, which is signed by defendant No.1. Report
of Local Commissioner Ex.P31 has also been placed on record. The Local
Commissioner, was appointed vide order dated 26.02.2010 by the Court and
was directed to take photographs and to report about existence of electricity
meter and to prepare the rough site plan alongwith identification of the
property in dispute. The Local Commissioner in his report Ex.P31 has
reported about existing state of affairs. The tenancy of the plaintiff is also
stand admitted by defendants No.1 and 2 and only defendants No.3 and 4/
appellants asserts the ownership and possessory rights over the disputed
property on the basis of Will dated 18.03.1999 executed by Smt. Sarbati
Devi in their favour. The title suit qua the property in dispute between the
defendants is pending for adjudication and in the present suit only tenancy
of the plaintiff under defendants No.1 and 2 is to be determined. Defendants
No.3 and 4/ appellants have admitted in their written statement that the
plaintiff had been inducted as a tenant in the shop in dispute by defendants
No.1 and 2, though they have claimed that he had been inducted as a tenant
by defendants No.1 and 2 in an illegal and unlawful manner. So when the
title suit between the defendants is also pending for adjudication then this is
not the matter in controversy to be adjudicated upon in the present case and
it is to be adjudicated in the said other suit. So once the plaintiff is
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029790
2024:PHHC:029790
RSA-1197-2021 (O&M) - 5-
established to be a tenant over the shop in dispute under defendants No.1
and 2 then he is entitled to protect his possession.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the present Regular Second
Appeal fails as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial
question of law.
10. Appeal stands dismissed being bereft of merits.
11. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
01.03.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029790
5 of 5
