JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby his suit for injunction was dismissed.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a co-sharer in the land described as Jumla Mushtaraka Malkan in the revenue record. It has been stated by the plaintiff that an amount of Rs. 44,000/- has been got deposited by the plaintiff in the shape of lease money. However, it has been pointed out that the said claim is illegal and unlawful and the amount has been deposited under protest and that the defendants have not concern with the suit land.
3. In the written statement, it has been pointed out by the defendant that the plaintiff had taken land on lease for the year 1990-91 for a consideration of Rs. 27,100/- and he had paid the said amount on 1.7.1990. Subsequently, also the land was taken on lease for a consideration of Rs. 4,400/-. Part of the said amount was paid on 15.5.1991 and on 1.11.1991. Both the Courts have considered the respective contentions of the parties and returned a finding on the basis of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1998-3) 120 P.L.R. 785, that after the expiry of lease period, if the possession is not surrendered, the person inducted as tenant become unauthorised occupant of the land and cannot be allowed to remain in possession of the suit land.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that possession of the plaintiff was that of a co-sharer in view of the description of the land in the revenue record and thus, he could not be dispossessed except in due process of law. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat Village Bhedpura v. The Additional Director, Consolidation and Ors. (1997-1) 115 P.L.R. 391 to contend that the factum of lease of the appellant is mistake of fact and therefore, it will not act as estoppel against the appellant to deny the status as that of lessee under the Gram Panchayat.
5. However, I am not able to agree with any of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Once the appellant has been found to be inducted as lessee, he has no right to continue in possession of the lease property after the expiry of lease period much less to claim injunction. Such is the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court of Roshan @ Roshan Lal v. Secretary, Government of Haryana and Ors. (1998-2) 119 P.L.R. 260.
6. In view of the said judgment it is not open to the appellant to seek injunction against the Panchayat from whom the appellant has taken land as lease. The allegation that the appellant is a co-sharer is not relevant in as much as he was inducted in possession as a lessee. As a lessee it is not open to him to deny the title of his landlord without surrender of the possession. The judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the present case. It is not the case of the appellant that he was under mistake when he was inducted as a lessee by the Panchayat. Having paid the lease for the same time, the appellant has been rightly found to be not entitled to any injunction against the Panchayat.
7. Consequently, I do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.