( 2025:HHC:24933 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 293 of 2019. Decided on : 29 th July, 2025. Karnail Singh & Ors. ...Appellants. Versus Kerala Devi ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashist and Mr. Shivom Vashist, Advocates. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 53-N/13 of 2018, whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Civil Suit No. 118/1 of 2016/2010 has been affirmed. 2. The appellants have approached this Court by way of Regular Second Appeal against a decree of Rs.9,980/- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:24933 ) along with future/simple interest @9% per annum passed against them in the suit filed by the respondent herein. 3. The original suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the premise that she was owner of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.2/5, Khasra No.95/79 measuring 3-9 bighas to the extent of 7/68 share measuring 0-7 bighas situated in Mauza Dharamkot, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. ( for short “the suit land”). According to the plaintiff a house had been constructed on the suit land. The appellants/defendants had been put in possession of the house on the suit land as a licencee and since they had failed to vacate the premises on the revocation of licence, the plaintiff had sought a decree of use and occupation charges @ Rs.1200/- per month. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants/appellants by raising various legal objections such as; regarding maintainability of the suit, cause of action, locus standi etc. On merits, the appellants/defendants raised a plea of permanent/irrevocable licence by alleging that they had raised construction on the suit land by spending more than Rs.1,50,000/- with the consent of the respondent/plaintiff. 3 ( 2025:HHC:24933 ) 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entilted for recovery of Rs.10,000/- along with interest as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. 4. Relief. 6. Issue No.1 was answered in affirmative partially, whereas all other issues were answered in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed as noticed above. 7. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the appellants/defendants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan which was assigned to learned Additional District Judge for disposal. The Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the defendants/appellants. Hence this Regular Second Appeal. 8. This instant appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 02.07.2019 on the following substantial questions of law:- 4 ( 2025:HHC:24933 ) 1. Whether the findings of the courts below perverse, based on misreading and misconstruction of oral documentary evidence, pleadings of the parties and drawing of wrong inferences from the facts proved on record? 2. Whether in view of the fact that the appellant had been permitted to raise costly structure on the land and permitted to stay in the property so long they liked and admittedly, the appellant had been given the licence? 3. Whether the learned Courts below have misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied the material on record, more particularly statements of PW-1 and PW2 and the view taken is not possible in view of the material on record and hence is perverse and wrongly assessed the mesne profit i.e. Rs.1200/- per month? 4. Whether the learned courts below have erred in returning the finding by not appreciated the Ex.DW1/B to G? 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 10. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that the appellants/defendants had no right to occupy the premises after revocation of licence; as such their possession was not authorised and they were liable to pay use and occupation charges to the respondent/plaintiff. 5 ( 2025:HHC:24933 ) 11. The plea raised by the defendants/appellants with respect to irrevocable licence has been disbelieved as no sufficient evidence was found by either of the Courts in proof of such contention. Admittedly, the appellant/defendants have not been able to prove any better title than that of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit premises, which could have been taken into consideration to defeat the claim of the plaintiff/respondent. 12. Noticeably, the learned First Appellate Court has also taken into consideration, the findings recorded by the Civil Court in previous litigation between the parties, whereby the plea of defendants/appellants as to irrevocable licence over the suit land/premises has been negated. It has also been noticed that though Regular Second Appeal before this Court was pending but there was no bar for filing of fresh suit for use and occupation charges by the plaintiff in the light of orders passed by this Court in the other Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellants. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to dislodge the findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below. Having gone through entire record of the case, I am also of the considered view that the findings so 6 ( 2025:HHC:24933 ) recorded by both the learned Courts below are clearly borne from the material on record proved in accordance with law. 14. I have not been able to find any illegality much less perversity in the judgment passed by both the learned Courts below. Thus, the substantial questions of law as noticed above are answered in the negative. 15. In Result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree is affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 29th July, 2025. (jai)