R. Banumathi, J.— Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 16-3-2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Kundan Lal v. Kamruddin RSA No. 1412 of 2002 confirming the judgment of the courts below wherein the appellants were directed to handover the possession of the suit property in question.
2. The respondent-plaintiff Kamruddin filed the suit for possession of the suit property. The case of the respondent-plaintiffs was that he became a tenant under Respondent 2 Punjab Wakf Board @ Rs 50 per month since 1-4-1990 over the suit property measuring 120 sq yd in Khasra No. 270 more fully described in blue and red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. Further, case of the first respondent-plaintiff is that in the month of November 1990, when his family had shifted to Village Sikarpur in the wake of riots in the Ramjanam Bhumi & Babri Masjid and he was out of station on his truck, taking advantage of his absence the appellants have taken illegal possession of the suit property and hence the first respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for vacant possession.
3. The appellant-Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit claiming that one Shivlal was in possession of the suit property as the said Shivlal had the property on lease from Punjab Wakf Board and also raised construction on the suit property. Appellants 1 and 2 have taken possession of the suit property from said Shivlal under an agreement dated 16-5-1990. The second respondent Punjab Wakf Board also accepted the appellants as its tenants vide allotment order dated 1-12-1990 and started receiving rent from them. Thus, according to the appellants they became tenants of the suit property under Punjab Wakf Board @ Rs 100 per month. Punjab Wakf Board also filed a separate written statement on the same lines.
4. On the above pleadings, issues were framed by the trial court and the trial court held Issue 1 in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff holding that the suit property was allotted to him as tenant by the Punjab Wakf Board since 1-4-1990 on monthly rent @ Rs 50. The trial court further held that the suit property was never allotted to Shivlal from whom allegedly the appellants had taken possession and that the appellants had failed to establish their possession over the suit property as the tenant. On those findings, the first respondent-plaintiff's suit filed for possession was decreed.
5. On appeal, the first appellate court/Additional District Judge, Rewari affirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. On further appeal, the High Court dismissed the same by the impugned judgment RSA No. 1412 of 2002.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. The learned counsel for the appellants placed strong reliance upon the agreement between the appellant and Shivlal dated 16-5-1990 and the allotment order by the Punjab Wakf Board in favour of the appellant to contend that the appellants are the tenants of Khasra No. 270 (old Khasra No. 867). It was submitted that Shivlal had handed over the possession of the suit property, measuring 19½ sq yd forming part of Khasra No. 270 and the same was also approved by the Punjab Wakf Board and the appellants had been paying the rent while so the courts below were not right in holding that the appellants are in illegal occupation of the suit property.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff submitted that Shivlal was not given any tenancy in Khasra No. 270 and he could not have entered into any agreement in respect of Khasra No. 270 and the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based on evidence and the same do not warrant any interference.
8. On perusal of Ext. PW-2/1, the allotment order, it is brought in evidence that the first respondent-plaintiff was allotted area measuring 126 sq yd being Khasra No. 270 with effect from 1-4-1990. The trial court as well as the first appellate court noted that the site plan on the back of the said allotment order shows that the suit property is a part of the allotted area measuring 126 sq yd. As seen from the judgments of the courts below, the first respondent has produced receipts regarding payment of rent to Appellant 3, regarding Khasra No. 270 which are Ext. PW-2/2 to Exts. PW-10 and PW-5/1 to Ext. PW-5/3 and Ext. PW-6/1 to Ext. PW-6/3. The contesting defendants have also placed on record receipts, Ext. DW-3/1 and Ext. DW-5/1 to Ext. DW-5/4; the courts below held that Mark A clearly shows that the same related to property bearing Khasra No. 267 and in that way the same cannot be connected to the suit land. Based on oral and documentary evidence, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the appellant is in possession and allotted different survey number in Khasra No. 267 and he has no right to claim the suit property.
9. In view of the above, the civil appeal stands dismissed.
10. However, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellants, six months' time is granted to vacate the suit premises, subject to filing usual undertaking in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today, stating that the appellant shall not create any third-party rights, will clear all the rent/dues/occupational charges to the Wakf Board in the meanwhile and will peacefully vacate the suit premises concerned within the stipulated time-frame positively.