D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) Girdha Singh was alleged to have inducted Joginder Singh defendant-respondent as his licensee in the property in dispute. The plaintiffs-appellants are the legal representatives of Girdha Singh deceased. They filed the instant suit for possession of the property in dispute and for recovery of Rs. 2,200.00 as arrears of licence fee, damages for use and occupation and as interest thereon. The suit property is that of Imambara. Girdha Singh was a displaced person and it is alleged that he was in possession of the same. It is not clear from the pleadings whether he was an allottee of this property or was in its possession otherwise. He died on 9.11.1971. It is alleged that during his life time, he gave the same to the defendant as a licensee for his temporary residence on 1.1.1971 and the defendant had agreed to pay Rs. 45.00 per month as licence fee. Girdha Singh revoked the licence in favour of the defendant on 8.9.1971. Thus the latter became liable to deliver back the possession of the suit property and to pay damages for its use and occupation. The defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement. He controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs by stating that he is in possession of the house in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs. 20.00 since 1.4.1971 from the Punjab Wakf Board which is its owner. He denied any relationship of licensor & licensee. As lessor and lessee between the parties. He specifically denied having got the house in dispute from Girdha Singh. The suit of the plaintiffs with regard to possession was decreed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class Ferozepur vide his judgment and decree dated 8.9.1975 holding that no doubt Girdha Singh was not the owner of the house in dispute but the defendant had taken from possession from him. The plaintiffs were, therefore, justified in demanding back the possession of the house from the defendant. The claim for recovery of Rs. 2,200.00 as licence fee etc. was however, rejected. On appeal filed by the defendant, the same was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide his judgment and decree dated 20.10.1977. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. The plaintiffs-appellants have thus preferred this Regular Second Appeal in this Court.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is clearly proved on the record that the respondent got possession of the house in dispute from Girdha Singh predecessor-in-interest of the appellants as a licensee. The trial Court, therefore, had rightly decreed their suit for possession. On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record. I find that there is no force in this contention. The fact that the Punjab Wakf Board is the owner of the house in dispute is admitted on both sides. There is no evidence that this house was allotted to Girdha Singh, or he was its lessee from the Punjab Wakf Board. In fact the evidence is that he was only a trespasser. There is no evidence, however, that at any stage of time Girdha Singh delivered its possession to the respondent as a licensee. The evidence of the appellants in this regard is divergent and mutually contradictory. Smt. Bhag Kaur appellant appeared as PW-2 and stated that the property was leased out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 45.00. In her cross-examination, she further stated that the house in dispute was allotted to the appellants and they were in possession of the document relating to the allotment but no such document was ever produced in Court. Sukhbir Kaur appellant appearing as PW-3 on the other hand, stated in cross-examination that the appellants had never paid any rent to the Wakf Board. There is no positive evidence that the respondent was inducted as a licensee by Girdha Singh. In fact, the statement of Lal Chand runs counter to the statements of the appellants appearing as PW-2 and PW-3 that the house was leased out to the respondent which again was never their case in the suit. I, therefore, find no ground to disturb the findings of fact recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge after due and proper appreciation of the evidence on record.
(3.) Finding no force in this appeal, the same is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.;