1
Court no. 1
Second Appeal No. 648 of 2010
Hemant Kumar Singh
versus
Mahipal Singh and another
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Original Suit No. 139 of 2001 for permanent injunction was filed by the
plaintiff appellant restraining the defendants opposite parties from
dispossessing the appellant from the premises in dispute.
The suit was contested by filing written statement by defendant
opposite party no.1. The case of the appellant was that he was inducted as
tenant by defendant no.1, Mahipal Singh who was recorded as owner in the
record of Nagar Nigam.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed
following issues on 17.5.2005 regarding his alleged tenancy and relief.
^^1- D;k oknh iz’uxr Hkou esa izfroknh la0&1 dh rjQ ls crkSj fdjk;snkj
v/;kflr gS\
2- D;k izfroknh la0&1 dks iz’uxr Hkou dks oknh dks fdjk;s ij nsus dk vf/kdkj
jgk gS\
3- D;k okn vYi ewY;kafdr gS vkSj iznRr U;k;’kqYd vi;kZIr gS\
4- D;k iz’uxr Hkou Jherh ewfrZ nsoh dks izfroknh la0&2 dh rjQ ls vkcafVr gS
vkSj muds }kjk iz’uxr Hkou dk ewY; vnk fd;k x;k gS\
5- D;k okn /kkjk 34 o 38 fof’k”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\
6- D;k oknh dks dksbZ okn dkj.k iSnk ugha gqvk\
7- D;k oknh ls izfroknh fo’ks”k gtkZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
8- vuqrks”k] ;fn dksbZ] gks ftls oknh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**
The trial Court decided issue no.1 against the appellant holding that
from the documents on record it is concluded that the plaintiff appellant was
not the tenant of defendant no.1 but is an unauthorized occupant. Issue no.2
has been decided by the trial Court holding that defendant no.1 did not give
the premises in dispute to the plaintiff appellant on rent. The trial Court has,
therefore, given a finding of fact on the basis of oral and documentary
2
evidence that the plaintiff appellant had not been inducted as tenant in the
premises in suit by its owner and has forcibly taken possession as such he
has no rights of a tenant. The findings of the trial Court have been
confirmed by the lower appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated
15.5.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff appellant.
In my considered opinion, both the Courts below have recorded
concurrent findings of facts against the plaintiff appellant holding him to be a
rank trespasser and not a tenant, hence he can neither claim rights of a
tenant nor can remain in possession of the house having taken forcible
possession. A man who has forcibly inducted himself on basis of an
unregistered will has to be vacated the premises once, the Courts below
have recorded a concurrent finding that he has no right to remain in the
premises in suit. No substantial question of law arises from the pleadings of
the parties and from the findings of courts below in this second appeal. This
Court in second appeal can not re-appreciate the evidence which is not
shown to be perverse or contrary to record and grant him injunction for
eviction in accordance with law from the premises which he is forcibly
occupying without any authority. The judgments and decrees of the courts
below operate against him and as such in the facts and circumstances his
eviction from the premises in dispute would be in accordance with law..
For the reasons stated above, the second appeal is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Dated 16.7.2010
CPP/-