M.M.SINGH BEDI,J. - (1.) SUIT of the Plaintiff -Appellant for possession of shop in dispute filed against the Defendant -Respondent has been dismissed by the Courts below holding that the status of the Defendant -Respondent as that of a tenant, taking into consideration the rent receipts EX.D1 to EX.D28, executed by Parveen Kohli, daughter -in -law of the vendor of the shop in dispute to the Plaintiff -Appellant. Besides this, the rent agreement dated 08.12.1993, signed by Parveen Kohli, has also been taken into consideration. There is an entry regarding the execution of said rent agreement in the record of Deed Writer (EX.D29), at Sr. No. 398, dated 08.12.1993. Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently contended that the entire record has been fabricated by the Defendant -Respondent as the signatures of seller Kundal Lal on the affidavit (EX.DW1/D) acknowledging the tenancy, did not tally with his signatures on the sale deed. EX.P1.
(2.) I have considered the contention of the counsel for the Appellant and I am of the opinion that in order to establish that the Defendant is in occupation as a tenant, the Defendant -Respondent is only required to establish that he had been inducted by his landlord. In the present case, he has been able to establish his relationship to the daughter -in -law of Kundan Lal, namely Parveen Kohli wife of Sudesh Kohli as tenant. A landlord is not required to be owner of the property. On the basis of sufficient documentary evidence produced on the record, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the daughter -in -law of the original owner and the Defendant -Respondent stands established. A concurrent finding of fact regarding the status of the Defendant -Respondent as tenant has been arrived at by the Courts below.
(3.) IN view of said circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the said finding of fact in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. No substantial question of law is involved.;