Judgment:
Rs.No.4419 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Rs.No.4419 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:17.01.2014 ***** Smt.
Sukhwarsha .
.Appellant Versus Mohinder Kaur and others .
.
Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant.
***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which her suit for ejectment from the shop in dispute has been dismissed.
The case set up by the plaintiff is that she is owner of shop in dispute in which plaintiff was inducted as tenant on the monthly rent of `50/- prior to the year 1983.
The defendants have not paid the rent since November 1984.
She served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for terminating the tenancy.
The plaintiff has claimed rent for one year i.e.`600/- for use and occupation and for the remaining period till the defendants deliver the possession of the shop, from November 1995 to Rs.No.4419 of 2011 -2- May 1996 @ `300/-.
The defendants denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the shop.
It is alleged that in the year 1961, the shop in dispute was taken on lease from Ganga Dass at the rate of `30/- per month out of KhaSr.No.3654/702 (pre-consolidation number) with boundaries as on the North: PWD road, South: land of Ganga Dass, East: Land of Ganga Dass and East: land of Ganga Dass.
On this plot, defendants had constructed one shop and one room alongwith courtyard on the backside in the month of December, 1961 and are in occupation since then.
It is further alleged that vide sale deed dated 31.8.1995, the defendants have purchased the said site with boundaries North: PWD road, South: land of Davinder Kumar son of Ganga Dass, East: land of Surinder Kumar, etc.and West: land of plaintiff having purchased from Davinder Kumar and his brother, who was heirs of late Ganga Dass and is exclusive owner in possession of the shop in dispute.
It is also submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and thus, there is no question of termination of tenancy and vacation of land.
The learned Courts below have returned the finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove her ownership as well as relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The plaintiff has contended that the sale deeds Ex.P1 to P3 and judgment Ex.P7 proved the ownership Rs.No.4419 of 2011 -3- but the Court had found that the said sale deeds and the judgment is not pertaining to the property in dispute.
Learned counsel for the appellant has though argued vehemently that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute but he could not establish the ownership with the help of any documentary evidence available on record and once the ownership has not been proved, the question of its letting out by the defendants does not arise at all.
Thus, both the Courts below have returned concurrent finding of fact against the plaintiff while dismissing her suit.
In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no substantial question of law is either involved or raised during the couRs.of hearing.
Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 17.01.2014 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2014.01.22 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document