High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Dr. Kuldeep Rai v. Rajinder Singh & Ors - RSA-1774-2004  RD-P&H 1625 (10 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.1774 of 2004(O&M)
Date of decision: March 21,2006
Dr. Kuldeep Rai v. Rajinder Singh and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondents.
For the reasons given in the application,the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below.
He filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he is in possession of a portion of the suit property as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500/-. It was claimed by him that the premises in question had been let out to him by the defendants wherein he was running Ayurvedic Clinic and also using the same for residential purposes.
The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants. In their separate written statement, defendants No.1 and 2 denied the fact that the plaintiff had been ever inducted as a tenant in the suit property, although they admitted that he was in possession of the premises in question. The aforesaid defendants claimed that his possession was unlawful.
In the written statement filed by defendant No.3, a similar stand was taken. The tenancy of the plaintiff over the premises in question was denied. Defendant No.3 even denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. Defendant No.3, in fact, specifically pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 were not even competent to give the premises to the plaintiff on rent as claimed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff did not appear as his own witness. On his behalf one of his employees, namely, Daljinder Pal Singh appeared. The learned R.S.A. No.1774 of 2004(O&M) 2
trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties held that the plaintiff was not proved to be tenant of the suit property nor he was held to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. However, he was held to be a cosharer of the suit property. In these circumstances, it was held that the remedy of the plaintiff was to seek the partition of the joint property and a suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court.
The learned first appellate Court also found that the plaintiff was not even proved to be in possession of the suit property. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
March 21,2006 ( Viney Mittal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.