RSA-4184-2025 (O& [138] Oriental B Manager (S Dr. Prerna Coram : Present: PANKAJ J CM-15387 and delay o RSA-4184 [1] [2] ejectment o decree of [3] having pur previous ow the suit pre lease deed, (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA RSA-4184 Date of dec ntal Bank of Commerce through it (Services), Head Office, New Del versus rerna Gulati wife of Shri Krishan Kum HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Arpit Chawla, Advocate *** KAJ JAIN, J. 15387-C-2025 For the reasons stated in the a elay of 09 days in re-filing the appeal 4184-2025 (O&M) Defendants are in appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit, seeking ment of the defendants from the dem e of mesne profits. As per the plaint, plaintiff is g purchased the same vide sale deed ious owner namely Smt. Shashi Gupta uit premises under registered lease de deed, the premises was let out to th - T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 4184-2025(O&M) of decision 10.02.2026 ugh its General w Delhi & others &Appellants n Kumar Gulati &.Respondent PANKAJ JAIN cate for the appellants. the application, the same is allowed ppeal is condoned. eking decree of possession by way o e demised premises and further soug tiff is owner of the demised premise e deed No.4215 dated 23.01.2009 fro Gupta. Defendants are in possession o ase deed dated 01.07.2007. As per th t to the defendants for a period of fiv 1 - owed way of r sought remises 09 from ssion of per the five RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4184-2025 (O& years. The Plaintiff vi defendants 29.01.2013 the demise Plaintiff ac and future [4] [5] The lease d per the def evicted prio [6] [7] that the d Defendants under comm (O&M) . The lease deed got determined b tiff vide communication dated 28.0 dants on completion of lease period. .2013 upon the defendants to hand o emised premises. However, defend tiff accordingly instituted the present uture mesne profits at the market rate i Suit was contested by the defen As per the defendants, the lea lease deed was for 20 years. Defenda defendants, the suit being pre-ma prior to expiry of 20 years. Court of the first instance fram <1. Whether the plaintiff possession of the suit pr 2. Whether the plaintiff is profits as prayed for? O 3. Whether the suit is not m 4. Whether the plaintiff ha present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff ha OPD 6. Relief.= While deciding Issue Nos.1 & the demised premises is situated ndants have raised objection with resp common law. The erstwhile owner o - ined by afflux of time on 31.10.201 28.07.2012 sought ejectment of th riod. Plaintiff served legal notice date and over vacant physical possession o defendants failed to vacate the sam resent suit seeking decree of possessio t rate i.e. @ Rs.1,45,290/- per month. e defendants. the lease deed contains renewal claus efendants are paying rent regularly. A mature, they are not liable to b e framed the following issues:- ntiff is entitled to the decree it property as prayed for? OPP ff is entitled to the recovery of mesn r? OPP not maintainable? OPD iff has no cause of action to file th iff has not affixed proper Court fee s.1 & 2, Court of the first instance he uated within urban area of Ambal ith respect to maintainability of the su wner of the property Smt. Shashi Gup 2 - 0.2012. t of the ce dated ssion of e same. ssession onth. clause. rly. As le to be ee of mesne ile the t fee? nce held Ambala. the suit i Gupta RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4184-2025 (O& entered into Perusal of t into betwee the same, th of bank. Th completed found that agreement 29.05.2008 (Control of applicable found that after plainti P3) was ex is not dispu was specifi years w.e.f grant of thr rent on eac conferred expiry of le lessor was months not Court of th premised in (O&M) ed into lease deed dated 29.05.2008 ( sal of the same reveals that an agreem between Smt. Shashi Gupta, lessor, an ame, the demised premises was to be c nk. There is recital in the document leted as per the specification and requ that it stood proved that the p ment dated 29.05.2007 and before e .2008 (Exhibit D-1). Thus in term trol of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 cable to the demised premises. The C d that the terms and conditions of orig plaintiff purchased the property. Leas as executed between the parties and r t disputed by the defendants. As per t specifically agreed that the lease shal w.e.f. 01.11.2007. Further an optio t of three extensions commencing from on each renewal of five years. Furt erred right upon the bank to vacate y of lease by serving three months no r was also conferred with the right to t hs notice to the bank after expiry of t of the First Instance accordingly he ised in favour of the defendants bank - 2008 (Exhibit D1) with the defendant greement dated 29.05.2007 was entere sor, and the lessee defendant(s). As p to be constructed as per the requireme ment that the premises have been du d requirements of the bank. Trial Cou the premises were constructed aft fore execution of the lease deed date n terms of Section 1(3) of the Urba t, 1973, provision of Rent Act are The Court of the first instance furth of original lease deed were renegotiat . Lease Deed dated 15.07.2009 (Exhib s and registered. The execution thereo s per the covenants contained therein, e shall be initially for a period of fiv option was provided to the lessor fo g from 01.11.2012 with 15% increase . Further Clause 15 of the lease dee cate the demised premises prior to nths notice upon the lessor. Similarl ht to terminate the lease by giving thre iry of first five years of the lease. Th gly held that the lease of the demise bank expired w.e.f. 01.11.2012 and th 3 - endants. entered As per irement en duly al Court d after d dated e Urban are not further gotiated (Exhibit thereof erein, it of five ssor for rease in se deed r to the imilarly, ng three The demised and the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4184-2025 (O& plaintiff w accordingly possession defendants Rs.50,000/ 01.05.2014 [8] Court, dism objections p [9] findings re below erred maintainab Courts belo execution o dated 29.05 with respec premises is the eviction to Section 1973. In o dated 29.0 Annexure A [10] through rec (O&M) tiff was entitled to possession. T rdingly decreed the suit filed by ession and holding the plaintiff entit dants for unauthorized use and occup 0,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2013 .2014 till the delivery of vacant posse The aforesaid findings stand a dismissing the appeal preferred tions preferred by the plaintiff. Learned counsel appearing fo ngs recorded by the Courts below. erred in ignoring the objection raised tainability of the suit in question. C ts below wrongly held that the demise ution of agreement dated 29.05.2007. 29.05.2007 was not with respect to respect to construction of the strong ises is admittedly situated within the u viction of the appellants-defendants c ction 13 of the Haryana Urban (Co . In order to hammerforth his conte 29.05.2007 brought on record by xure A-2. I have heard counsel for the ap gh records of the case. - n. The Court of the First Instanc the plaintiff, granting decree o f entitled to mesne profits against th occupation of the demised premises @ .2013 with 6% annual increase w.e. possession. stand affirmed by the Lower Appella ferred by the defendants and cros ing for the appellants has assailed th low. He submits that both the Cour raised by the appellants with respect ion. Counsel further submits that th demised premises was constructed aft .2007. He submits that the agreeme ect to construction of the building b trong room for the bank. The demise n the urban area of Ambala City. Thu ants could be sought only by resortin n (Control of Rent and Eviction) Ac contention, he relies upon agreeme d by way of CM No.1812-C-2026 r the appellants and have carefully gon 4 - nstance cree of inst the ises @ w.e.f. ppellate cross- iled the Courts spect to that the ted after reement ing but demised . Thus, esorting n) Act, reement 2026 as lly gone RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4184-2025 (O& [11] 13 of the 1 therefrom landlord se Controller under Secti subject to [12] completed provisions completion as the erstw (O&M) There is no quarrel with the pr f the 1973 Act, a tenant in possession from except in accordance with the ord seeking eviction of the tenant roller, seeking ejectment of the tenan r Section 13 of 1973. Act. Howev ct to Section 1 thereof. The same rea <1. Short title and extent. Haryana Urban (Control of Re (2) It shall extend to nothing herein contained shall [(3) Nothing in this A construction of which is commencement of this Act fo date of its completion.]= In terms of Section 1(3), any leted on or after the commencement o isions of 1973 Act for a period of letion. In terms of Agreement dated 2 erstwhile owner of the property Smt. <1. That the lessors shall premises comprised of approx on ground floor (subject to ac Civil Line, Ambala City as completed as per the requirem of its branches at 12 Civil Line will construct strong room stationary room / toilet blo - the proposition that in terms of Sectio session of a building cannot be evicte th the provisions of Section 13. Th enant is required to apply to the Re tenant on the grounds as enumerate wever, provisions of the Rent Act a e reads as under:- ent.4(1) This Act may be called th of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. d to all urban areas in Haryana b shall apply to any cantonment area. is Act shall apply to any building th is completed on or after th t for a period of ten years from th 3), any building whose construction ment of 1973 Act is exempted from th iod of 10 years from the date of i dated 29.05.2007, the defendants as we y Smt. Shashi Gupta agreed as under: hall give on lease up to the ban the proximately 2000 sq. ft. covered are to actual measurement) situated at 1 as per plan annexed hereto ful uirement of the bank for shifting on Line, Ambala. In this area the less room admeasuring 120-150 sq.ft. block as per the requirement an 5 - Section evicted 3. The Rent merated Act are ed the na but rea. ng the r the m the ction is rom the e of its as well nder:- n their area at 12 fully g one lessor q.ft. / t and RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4184-2025 (O& [13] constructio dated 29.05 out any evi (O&M) specification of the bank. xxxx xxxx 5. That the entire electric lessor/lessors except the elec install according to their o shall also provide collapsib entrance of the premises an entrance of the ATM cabin. shall be covered with thick into the wall with grouting. 6. That the Lessor/Lessors as per requirement of the bank the bank within three month installment of additional loa have a right to occupy the sa of this lease agreement or to this agreement and/or claim d 7. That the lessor/lesso premises, all the necessary sanitation etc for which the b charges as per the bills receive 8. That the lessor/lessors s per the specification of the b own cost but the strong roo bank.= It is in these circumstances, tha truction of the building was complet 29.05.2007. The defendants-appella ny evidence on record to rebut the evid - xxx xxxx ctric wiring shall be providing by th electric fitting which the bank ma eir own requirements. The lesso psible gate and roller shutter at th s and separate roller shutter at th in. All the windows and ventilato ick MS rod grills strongly embedde sors shall complete the said premis bank and shall hand over the same onths from the date of release of I loan, failing which the bank sha e said premises & enforce the term r to exercise the option in cancellin im damage. lessors shall provide at the sa sary facilities such as water, toile the bank shall be liable to pay th ceived from the authorities. ors shall construct a strong room a he bank in the said premises at the room door shall be supplied by th ces, that the Courts below found that t ompleted after execution of agreeme appellants have not been able to poi he evidence relied upon by the plaintif 6 - by the may essors at the at the ilators edded emises ame to of Ist shall terms celling said toilet, ay the om as t their by the that the reement to point laintiff. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4184-2025 (O& [14] Scope of s came up fo Prithvi Pal (O&M) Pure finding of fact has been e of second appeal under Section 41 up for consideration before Apex C vi Pal Singh & Ors. 2019(17) SCC 7 <14. The Division Bench of Punja judgment reported in Sadhu v. Mst set aside the judgment of the learne appeal in terms of the provisions o and held as under: "12. The scope of second 100 of the Civil Procedur Punjab Courts Act has been number of times by this cou that is, the Supreme Court o the appellant has actually m Detty Paitabhiramaswami Supreme Court 57.], Muthaluru Bojjappa [AIR Bithal Dass Khanna v. Haf 481.] and Afsar Shaikh v. 142: AIR 1976 Supr pronouncements; in a nutsh jurisdiction to entertain a se erroneous finding of fact, the error may seem to be. N of the first appellate Cou evidence make it any the le the High Court has, therefor second appeal with the find appellate court based upon evidence. Their Lordships only ground on which suc competent is where there is not merely on an error on a q xx xx xx - s been recorded by the Courts below ion 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 191 pex Court in Randhir Kaur Versu SCC 71 wherein it was held as under : Punjab and Haryana High Court in a . Mst. Kishni, 1980 AIR (Punjab) 85 learned Single Bench in an intra court ions of law as it existed prior to 1976, cond appeal as envisaged by section cedure Code and section 41 of the s been a matter of judicial scrutiny a his court as well as by the final court, ourt of India. The learned counsel for ally made a reference in this regard to swami v. S. Hanymayya [AIR 1959 7.], Madamanchi Ramappa v. [AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1633.], v. Hafiz Abdul Hai [1969 S.C. Notes ikh v. Soleman Bibi [(1976) 2 SCC Supreme Court 163.]. These a nutshell, lay down that there is no in a second appeal on the ground of a fact, however gross or inexecusable be. Nor does the fact that the finding e Court is upon some documentary the less a finding of fact. A Judge of herefore, no jurisdiction to interfere in he findings of fact given by the first upon an appreciation of the relevant ships have further observed that the h such an appeal can be said to be ere is an error in law or procedure and r on a question of fact. 7 - below. ct, 1918 Versus nder :- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4184-2025 (O& 15. Bench in Court) 473 [16] there being finds no me (O&M) 14. In view of the above d view that the learned Single in setting aside the findings provisions of section 100 there was no scope for inter thus allow the appeal and learned Single Judge and a passed by the District Judg to bear their own costs. 15. A perusal of the aforesaid ju jurisdiction in second appeal is not fact on the ground that findings ar inexcusable the error may seem to b include the findings on the basis jurisdiction to interfere in the seco an error in law or procedure and no of fact.= The said dictum was further el h in Satyender and Ors. Versus Saro t) 4732 as under :- <xxxx xxxx 17. Be that as it may, though the r substantial question of law was not Punjab Courts Act, requires that considered in second appeal which custom or usage having the force failed to determine some material i having the force of law. Therefo "question of law". In other words where court has to re-examine or settled by the Trial Court and the A In view of the above, this Co being any question of law involved no merits in the same. The appeal is o - ove discussion, we are clearly of the Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction ndings of the fact on issue No. 2. The 100 being clear and unambiguous, r interference with those findings. We l and set aside the judgment of the and affirm the judgment and decree t Judge. The parties are, however left said judgments would show that the is not to interfere with the findings of ings are erroneous, however, gross or em to be. The findings of fact will also basis of documentary evidence. The e second appeal is only where there is and not merely an error on a question ther elaborately echoed by three Judge s Saroj and Ors. 2022 AIR (Suprem xxxx xxxx h the requirement of formulation of a as not necessary, yet Section 41 of the s that only such decisions are to be ich are contrary to law or to some force of law or the court below have terial issue of law or custom or usage herefore, what is important is still a words, second appeal is not a forum ine or re-appreciate questions of fact the Appellate Court......&= this Court finds that in the absence o olved in the present appeal, this Cou eal is ordered to be dismissed. 8 - Judges upreme ence of is Court RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4184-2025 (O& [17] 10.02.2026 8R. Sharma' (O&M) All miscellaneous application( .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable - ation(s), if any, stand disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No 9 - RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.11 18:48 I agree to specified portions of this document