IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No. 625 of 2009
Date of decision: 19.2.2009
Rohtas ... Appellant.
Versus
Simru ... Respondent
Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate,
for the appellant.
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J:
The present appellant,Rohtas, was the defendant in the
suit for possession preferred by plaintiff, Simru, for possession of House
No. 22, Block No. 2013, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh and lost in both the
Courts below.
As per the case of the plaintiff, he was allotted the afore-
mentioned house by the competent Authority under the Licensing of
Tenement and Sites in Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979, in lieu of
House No. 1056, Kumhar Colony, Sector 25, Chandigarh. The defendant,
namely, Rohtas, who is the son of the plaintiff, on request, was allowed by
the plaintiff to live with his family in the said house as licensee. Since his
son (defendant) started harassing/maltreating him, the plaintiff was
constrained to move out of the said house in the month of August, 1998 and
to live with his daughter. Plaintiff then asked the defendant to vacate the
house but he flatly refused. Plaintiff thereafter got published a notice in the
newspaper disclaiming the defendant as his son and further debarred him
from inheriting his property in any manner. Service of a legal notice for
vacation of the house also did not bear any results and ultimately, the
plaintiff filed the present suit for possession of the house in question. Upon
notice of the suit, defendant filed written statement thereby denying the
averments made in the plaint. He stated that the plaintiff is a mere licensee
and the licence-fee was paid by the defendant from his own
pocket/resources.
Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced by
the parties before it, vide its judgment and decree dated 21.4.2006, decreed
RSA No. 625 of 2009 -2-
the suit of the plaintiff whereby he was held entitled to seek possession of
the house in question. Aggrieved against the same, defendant preferred an
appeal which came to be dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its
judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the
defendant.
While decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, both the Courts
while placing reliance upon that allotment letter Exhibit P-3/1 have
concurrently held that the tenement in question was allotted to the plaintiff
in his individual capacity. It has been found from the statement of
defendant, Rohtas, himself that he and his father, i.e. plaintiff, had been
living separately in separate jhuggies in Kumhar Colony, Sector 25,
Chandigarh. Defendant, Rohtas, in his statement had further stated that in
lieu of said jhuggi allotted to him, he was allotted a house bearing No. 39 in
Khudda Lahora colony and that he had sold the same to one Parshotam and
for doing that, he also did not seek any permission from the Government.
From this part of the statement of defendant, it is amply clear that the
defendant had been living separately from his father in a separate jhuggi
and thereafter, in lieu of said jhuggi, was allotted a separate house No. 39 in
Khudda Lahora Colony by the Government, which he sold later on.
Further more, report, the publication regarding disowing of defendant-
Rohtas by plaintiff-Simru from his movable as well as immovable property,
has been placed on record as Exhibit PW-2/1. The Courts below have
further held that there is not even an iota of evidence produced by the
defendant to substantiate his plea that he had made payment of the licence-
fee of the house in question on behalf of his father, Simru and that even if
the said plea of defendant is accepted, then also the plaintiff was legally
entitled to retain the house since the allotment thereof was is in his name.
Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts
below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question
of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal.
Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is
hereby dismissed.
February 19, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE