RSA-2345- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 Ram Bhore Hargolal Dharamshala CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. against the whereby the suit for possession, recovery by the plaintiff/respondent has been decreed by both the Courts below. 2. before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as ‘defendant’, 3. plaintiff is a Dharamshala popularly known as Hargolal Dharamshala and is being managed and administered through the family Trust present suit. Sh. Hargolal forefather Dharamshala in the interest of public. However, defendant by taking undue advantage of the absence of the trustee entered into possession of a room of the -2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ram Bhore Versus Hargolal Dharamshala Trust, Ambala Cantt. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Avnish Mittal and Ms. Ishika Jain, Advocates for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA, J. The present second appeal has been filed by the against the concurrent judgments and decree whereby the suit for possession, recovery, by the plaintiff/respondent-Hargolal Dharamshala Trust, Ambala Cantt., has been decreed by both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as ‘defendant’, whereas the respondent as ‘plaintiff’. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are plaintiff is a Dharamshala popularly known as Hargolal Dharamshala and is being managed and administered through the family Trust. Sh. V.K.Goel has been authorized and appointed to file the present suit. Sh. Hargolal forefather of Sh. V.K.Goel ha Dharamshala in the interest of public. However, defendant by taking undue advantage of the absence of the trustee entered into possession of a the Dharamshala in the year 2001, without any right, title or IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2345-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 .…Appellant Trust, Ambala Cantt. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Avnish Mittal and Ms. Ishika Jain, Advocates The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant and decrees of both the Courts below and permanent injunction filed haramshala Trust, Ambala Cantt., has been decreed by both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as ‘plaintiff’. as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a Dharamshala popularly known as Hargolal Dharamshala and is being managed and administered through the Trust which is a registered Sh. V.K.Goel has been authorized and appointed to file the of Sh. V.K.Goel had constructed the Dharamshala in the interest of public. However, defendant by taking undue advantage of the absence of the trustee entered into possession of a Dharamshala in the year 2001, without any right, title or nt both the Courts below nction filed haramshala Trust, Ambala Cantt., The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as plaintiff is a Dharamshala popularly known as Hargolal Dharamshala and which is a registered Sh. V.K.Goel has been authorized and appointed to file the constructed the Dharamshala in the interest of public. However, defendant by taking undue advantage of the absence of the trustee entered into possession of a Dharamshala in the year 2001, without any right, title or RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- interest. When illegal act of the defendant was resisted by the plaintiff Trust then he gave injuries to Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who was Manager of the plaintiff and FIR was registered against the present defendant, in which he was held guilty and convicted for the co under Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC on 11.02.2010 defendant was enlarged on further averred that defendant did not stop there and to legalize his unlawful possession, he had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 for the restoration of the amenities of electricity and water therein. The matter was heard on merits and vide order dated 17.03.2008, it was dismissed by giving the conclusion that defendant was unable to prove on record that he is tenant under the p relationship of landlord and tenant between the two. Since various entreats of plaintiff has fallen de on 09.04.2012. 4. resisted the suit by filing written statement, the defendant is residing in the suit property/room in question for the last 20 years. It was pleaded that defendant was employed as Chowkidar the Dharamshala Garg, who was the In ₹100/- per month was deducted from his salary towards rent for the accommodation. not a registered family -2025 (O&M) -2- st. When illegal act of the defendant was resisted by the plaintiff Trust then he gave injuries to Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who was Manager of the plaintiff and FIR was registered against the present defendant, in which he was held guilty and convicted for the co under Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC on 11.02.2010 was enlarged on probation, but his conviction was upheld. It is further averred that defendant did not stop there and to legalize his unlawful possession, he had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 for the restoration amenities of electricity and water, therein. The matter was heard on merits and vide order dated 17.03.2008, it was dismissed by giving the conclusion that defendant was unable to prove on record that he is tenant under the p relationship of landlord and tenant between the two. Since various of plaintiff has fallen deaf ears, hence, on 09.04.2012. Upon notice, the appellant- resisted the suit by filing written statement, the defendant is residing in the suit property/room in question for the last 20 years. It was pleaded that defendant was employed as Chowkidar the Dharamshala and had been working as such under Sh. Garg, who was the In-charge and Trustee of the Dharamshala. A sum of per month was deducted from his salary towards rent for the accommodation. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff not a registered family Trust and Sh. V.K.Goel is not its president. Thus, st. When illegal act of the defendant was resisted by the plaintiff- Trust then he gave injuries to Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who was Manager of the plaintiff and FIR was registered against the present defendant, in which he was held guilty and convicted for the commission of offenses under Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC on 11.02.2010. In appeal the but his conviction was upheld. It is further averred that defendant did not stop there and to legalize his unlawful possession, he had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 for the restoration , alleging himself to be tenant therein. The matter was heard on merits and vide order dated 17.03.2008, it was dismissed by giving the conclusion that defendant was unable to prove on record that he is tenant under the plaintiff nor there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the two. Since various hence, the present suit was filed -defendant had appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, stating therein that the defendant is residing in the suit property/room in question for the last 20 years. It was pleaded that defendant was employed as Chowkidar of nd had been working as such under Sh. Ram Mohan charge and Trustee of the Dharamshala. A sum of per month was deducted from his salary towards rent for the defendant that the plaintiff-Trust is and Sh. V.K.Goel is not its president. Thus, Trust then he gave injuries to Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who was Manager of the plaintiff and FIR was registered against the present defendant, in he but his conviction was upheld. It is further averred that defendant did not stop there and to legalize his unlawful possession, he had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 for the restoration alleging himself to be tenant therein. The matter was heard on merits and vide order dated 17.03.2008, it was dismissed by giving the conclusion that defendant was unable to laintiff nor there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the two. Since various the present suit was filed appeared and stating therein that the defendant is residing in the suit property/room in question for the last of Ram Mohan charge and Trustee of the Dharamshala. A sum of per month was deducted from his salary towards rent for the is and Sh. V.K.Goel is not its president. Thus, RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- denying the case of the plaintiff on all material terms, defendant pray for dismissal of the suit 5. the written statement 6. were framed 7. the evidence adduced judgment and decree dated plaintiff-Trust to the extent that for possession of the suit property and the relief of permanent injunction is also granted in favor of plaintiff thereby restraining defendant from handing over the suit property to anyone else than plaintiff. However, the relief of damages 8. 27.08.2018 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant had filed Civil respondent decree dated 17.03.2025, upheld the findings of -2025 (O&M) -3- denying the case of the plaintiff on all material terms, defendant pray for dismissal of the suit. In replication, the plaintiff-Trust had refuted the contents of written statement and had reiterated the contents of the plaint On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: - “Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property as alleged? OPP Issue no.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery as prayed for? OPP Issue no.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed f Issue no.4: Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Issue no.5: Whether the suit is barred under the Haryana Act No.11 of 1973 ? OPD Issue no.6: Relief” Upon appraisal and consideration of the pleadings, as also the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 27.08.2018 partly decreed the suit of the Trust to the extent that “plaintiff is granted the re for possession of the suit property and the relief of permanent injunction is also granted in favor of plaintiff thereby restraining defendant from handing over the suit property to anyone else than plaintiff. However, the relief of damages is not granted in favor of plaintiff Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 361 dated 29.09.2018; whereas the respondent-plaintiff had filed cross-objections. Vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2025,the learned Additional District Judge Ambala, upheld the findings of the ld. trial Court in respect of issues No. 1, 3, 4 denying the case of the plaintiff on all material terms, defendant prayed Trust had refuted the contents of had reiterated the contents of the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property as alleged? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery as Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is not maintainable in the Whether the suit is barred under the Haryana Upon appraisal and consideration of the pleadings, as also the learned trial Court vide partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff is granted the relief of decree for possession of the suit property and the relief of permanent injunction is also granted in favor of plaintiff thereby restraining defendant from handing over the suit property to anyone else than plaintiff. However, is not granted in favor of plaintiff.” Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant-defendant Appeal No. 361 dated 29.09.2018; whereas the objections. Vide judgment and the learned Additional District Judge Ambala, trial Court in respect of issues No. 1, 3, 4 Trust had refuted the contents of On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery as Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Whether the suit is not maintainable in the Whether the suit is barred under the Haryana RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- and 5; however set aside the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No. 2; and while dismissing the appeal of the defendant with costs; the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff that “the plaintiff rate of Rs.100/ annum from the date of filing of the present suit until the delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent Hence, present second appeal 9. appellant-defendant CPC, the learned Lower Appellate court has failed to apply its mind and has verbatim reproduced the findings of the learned trial Court. It is submitted that plaintiff without making any independent assessment of its own merely placing reliance upon A-3) passed landlord-tenant relationship was not found between the parties. the impugned judgments and decrees are unsustainable. placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Dead) by Lrs. vs. K.P.Basavaraj (Dead) by Lrs., Law Finder Doc ID # 1999232, consider evidence on record, in particular those relied upon by Trial Court’. 10. plaintiff entitled to defendant had admitted in the previous litigation before theRent -2025 (O&M) -4- ; however set aside the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No. 2; and while dismissing the appeal of the defendant with costs; the objections filed by the plaintiff were the plaintiff-Cross-Objector is held entitled to rate of Rs.100/- per month, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit until the delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent Hence, present second appeal by defendant. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for defendant that contrary to the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the learned Lower Appellate court has failed to apply its mind and has verbatim reproduced the findings of the learned trial Court. It is itted that even the learned trial Court plaintiff without making any independent assessment of its own merely placing reliance upon the judgment dated 17.03.2008 (Annexure passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., whereby tenant relationship was not found between the parties. the impugned judgments and decrees are unsustainable. placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ad) by Lrs. vs. K.P.Basavaraj (Dead) by Lrs., Law Finder Doc ID # 1999232, wherein it is held that ‘First Appellate Court ought to consider evidence on record, in particular those relied upon by Trial Further, the Lower Appellate Court has als plaintiff entitled to mesne profits only on the ground that the appellant defendant had admitted in the previous litigation before theRent ; however set aside the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No. 2; and while dismissing the appeal of the defendant with costs; the were partly allowed to the extent Objector is held entitled to mesne profit at the ith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit until the delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent-plaintiff’. by defendant. submitted by learned counsel for the contrary to the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the learned Lower Appellate court has failed to apply its mind and has verbatim reproduced the findings of the learned trial Court. It is the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff without making any independent assessment of its own, by judgment dated 17.03.2008 (Annexure by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., whereby tenant relationship was not found between the parties. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees are unsustainable. Reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somakka ad) by Lrs. vs. K.P.Basavaraj (Dead) by Lrs., Law Finder Doc ‘First Appellate Court ought to consider evidence on record, in particular those relied upon by Trial the Lower Appellate Court has also held the only on the ground that the appellant- defendant had admitted in the previous litigation before theRent RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- Controller that there existed landlord tenant parties. It is argued that either t relationship of landlord tenant between the parties; and, therefore, liable to pay mesne profits tenant is not accepted premises then 11. admitted fact on record that the defendant was appointed as Chowkidar by Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg, who was the Managing Trustee o plaintiff-Trust at that time. As such, the acts done by Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg, during his tenure are valid and binding upon the Trust; and the possession of the room in question so given to the defendant in pursuance of his appointment as Chowkidar well on the Trustees. occupation of the suit premises as Chowkidar since 1991. possession of the appellant over the suit property since 1991 is borne out of the documents averred that the appellant the year 2001. Leaned counsel contends that in this premise, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay the the year 1991. 12. registered Trust. plaintiff is a family registered Trust. competent to file Trustees has been placed on record by the plaintiff authorizing the -2025 (O&M) -5- Controller that there existed landlord tenant parties. It is argued that either the Courts below could have accepted the relationship of landlord tenant between the parties; and, therefore, liable mesne profits; Or if the relationship between the landlord and is not accepted and the appellant is an illegal occupant of the then mesne profits could not have been imposed. Ld. counsel for the defendant further submits that it is an admitted fact on record that the defendant was appointed as Chowkidar by Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg, who was the Managing Trustee o Trust at that time. As such, the acts done by Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg, during his tenure are valid and binding upon the Trust; and the possession of the room in question so given to the defendant in pursuance of his appointment as Chowkidar well on the Trustees. It is further submitted that occupation of the suit premises as Chowkidar since 1991. possession of the appellant over the suit property since 1991 is borne out of the documents Ex. D-5 to Ex. D-7. However, in averred that the appellant came into occupation of the suit premises the year 2001. Leaned counsel contends that in this premise, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay the the year 1991. It is further submitted that registered Trust. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the plaintiff is a family registered Trust. In fact, competent to file the present Civil Suit as no Trustees has been placed on record by the plaintiff authorizing the Controller that there existed landlord tenant relationship between the he Courts below could have accepted the relationship of landlord tenant between the parties; and, therefore, liable if the relationship between the landlord and and the appellant is an illegal occupant of the suit could not have been imposed. Ld. counsel for the defendant further submits that it is an admitted fact on record that the defendant was appointed as Chowkidar by Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg, who was the Managing Trustee of the Trust at that time. As such, the acts done by Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg, during his tenure are valid and binding upon the Trust; and the possession of the room in question so given to the defendant in pursuance of his appointment as Chowkidar is binding on the Trust as It is further submitted that the appellant has been in occupation of the suit premises as Chowkidar since 1991. The possession of the appellant over the suit property since 1991 is borne out 7. However, in the plaint it has been occupation of the suit premises in the year 2001. Leaned counsel contends that in this premise, the appellant could not have been held liable to pay the mesne profits since It is further submitted that the plaintiff-Trust is not a othing has been placed on record to show that the In fact, the plaintiff-Trust was not the present Civil Suit as no Resolution by the Board of Trustees has been placed on record by the plaintiff authorizing the RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- plaintiff to file the suit. It is submitted that in the plaint it has been averred that Sh. VK Goyal, is authorized to file the pla Resolution Sh. VK Goyal has not even stepped into the witness case of the plaintiff. Learned counsel vehemently contends that therefore, case of the plaintiff r could not have been decreed. one Sh. Alok Goyal, had deposed on behalf of the plaintiff. Learned counsel contends that plaintiff, yet, he was not competent to depos knowledge of the facts and events as Trust in the year 2001 when the appellant came into possession of the suit property appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Finder Doc ID # 224670 -2025 (O&M) -6- plaintiff to file the suit. It is submitted that in the plaint it has been averred that Sh. VK Goyal, is authorized to file the pla Resolution has been brought on record to affirm the said fact. Moreover, Sh. VK Goyal has not even stepped into the witness case of the plaintiff. Learned counsel vehemently contends that therefore, case of the plaintiff remains un-proven could not have been decreed. It is submitted in place Alok Goyal, had deposed on behalf of the plaintiff. Learned counsel contends that although Shri AK Goyal was a Trustee of the yet, he was not competent to depos knowledge of the facts and events as he was not a part of the plaintiff Trust in the year 2001 when the appellant came into possession of the suit property. In support of his contention, appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Finder Doc ID # 224670 wherein in para-No. 12 “12. We may now summarize position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge: (a) An attorney holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal the power of attorney and the filing of the suit. (b If the attorney holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions. If the attorney holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved. (c) The attorney holder cannot d in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge. plaintiff to file the suit. It is submitted that in the plaint it has been averred that Sh. VK Goyal, is authorized to file the plaint. However, no has been brought on record to affirm the said fact. Moreover, Sh. VK Goyal has not even stepped into the witness-box to prove the case of the plaintiff. Learned counsel vehemently contends that proven; and therefore, the suit It is submitted in place of Shri VK Goel, Alok Goyal, had deposed on behalf of the plaintiff. Learned although Shri AK Goyal was a Trustee of the yet, he was not competent to depose as he had no personal was not a part of the plaintiff- Trust in the year 2001 when the appellant came into possession of the In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, Law No. 12 it was held as under: - summarize for convenience, the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge: An attorney holder who has signed the plaint and has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit. If the attorney holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness those acts or transactions. If the attorney holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be The attorney holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge. RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- 13. any proper authorization. No President VK Goyal has been placed on record. In absence of any resolution in his favour, the present suit being filed by unknown person on behalf of the Trust is defective and liable to be set aside on this ground alon -2025 (O&M) -7- (d) Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney holder, necessarily the attorney holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney holders. (e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney holder, the principal has to examine that attorney holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney holder. (f) Where different attorney holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney holders will have to be examined. (g) Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his ‘conduct’, normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his and a purchaser seeking specific performance w show his ‘readiness and willingness category. There is however a recognized exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or Examples of such attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad. It is reiterated that the present suit has been filed without any proper authorization. No Resolution authorizing the alleged President VK Goyal has been placed on record. In absence of any resolution in his favour, the present suit being filed by unknown person on behalf of the Trust is defective and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney holder, necessarily the attorney holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. equently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through Where the entire transaction has been conducted ular attorney holder, the principal has to examine that attorney holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney holder. Where different attorney holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if evidence has to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney holders will have to be examined. Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove ence to his ‘state of mind’ or , normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his ‘bona fide’ need and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to readiness and willingness’ fall under this category. There is however a recognized exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who a close family member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or ‘readiness and willingness’. Examples of such attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad.” that the present suit has been filed without Resolution authorizing the alleged President VK Goyal has been placed on record. In absence of any resolution in his favour, the present suit being filed by unknown person on behalf of the Trust is defective and liable to be set aside on this RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- 14. that the suit between the contended that the present suit has been filed with mala fide Krishan Mohan Garg. Further, the present suit is nothing but a blast of the plaintiff defendant before th Appellate C the defendant and granted the same as plaintiff. It is submitted that can be granted only in the case of relationship of landlord and tenant. Thus, the grant the present defendant valid possession of the room in question. the judgment 17.03.2025 aside; and suit of the plaintiff be also dismiss 15. appellant. I have heard l 16. behalf of the appellant forth in his written statement, as also in his argument before this Court, is that he was employed as a Chowkidar with the p Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg stated by the defendant that as he was employed as Chowkidar, he -2025 (O&M) -8- It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant uit is filed against the defendant only due to the Trustees and, therefore, defendant is being evicted. It is contended that the present suit has been filed mala fide intent only to harass and settle his scores with Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg. Further, the present suit is nothing but a of the plaintiff in retaliation to the proceedings initiated by the defendant before the Rent Controller. It is stated Court has held an amount of ₹100/ the defendant and granted the same as mesne profit plaintiff. It is submitted that mesne profit can be granted only in the case of relationship of landlord and tenant. Thus, the grant of mesne profit on the basis of admitted rent proves tha the present defendant-appellant is a tenant of the d possession of the room in question. the judgments and decrees dated 27.08.2018 of the trial Court; and 17.03.2025, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court suit of the plaintiff be also dismiss No other argument has been I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant-defendant. The whole case of the appellant forth in his written statement, as also in his argument before this Court, is that he was employed as a Chowkidar with the p Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg (also known as Ram Mohan Garg the defendant that as he was employed as Chowkidar, he It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant filed against the defendant only due to inter se rivalry Trustees and, therefore, defendant is being evicted. It is contended that the present suit has been filed by Sh. VK Goyal, only intent only to harass and settle his scores with Sh. Krishan Mohan Garg. Further, the present suit is nothing but a counter- in retaliation to the proceedings initiated by the . It is stated that the ld. First 100/- as the rent admitted by mesne profit to the respondent- on the basis of admitted rent can be granted only in the case of relationship of landlord and tenant. on the basis of admitted rent proves that appellant is a tenant of the Trust and is in a legal It is accordingly prayed that s dated 27.08.2018 of the trial Court; and dated , passed by the learned lower Appellate Court may be set suit of the plaintiff be also dismissed. has been raised by learned counsel for counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions advanced on defendant. The whole case of the appellant as put forth in his written statement, as also in his argument before this Court, is that he was employed as a Chowkidar with the plaintiff-Trust by one also known as Ram Mohan Garg). It is further the defendant that as he was employed as Chowkidar, he was RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- provided the suit premises as accommodation which he had been occupying 1991. However, on a direct Court query, it has been very candidly admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that possessed no the appellant had failed to produce any letter of appointment before the Courts below the plaintiff occupation of the suit pr employed with the plaintiff occupying the suit premises since the year 1991 queries, ld. question. 17. above stand taken by the defendant in his written statement present suit, in the defendant had taken a totally contrary tenant in the suit premises variance with statement before the learned trial Court. appellant had previously filed a petition dated 09.05.2001 under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act No. II of 1973, for restoration of the amenities of electricity and water to the tenanted p 8)/(Annexure A dismissed the said petition filed by the appellant finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between -2025 (O&M) -9- provided the suit premises as accommodation which he had been occupying 1991. However, on a direct Court query, it has been very candidly admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that possessed no proof of his appointment as Cho appellant had failed to produce any letter of appointment before the Courts below; or any other proof of his employment the plaintiff-Trust. Clearly, therefore, the defendant was in illegal occupation of the suit premises. If it is not proved that defendant was employed with the plaintiff-Trust, then in what occupying the suit premises since the year 1991 d. counsel for the appellant is unable to It is further to be noted that in clear contradiction of the above stand taken by the defendant in his written statement present suit, in the previous proceedings before the Rent Controller, the defendant had taken a totally contrary stance tenant in the suit premises. The said stance of the appellant is variance with the case now put forth by the appellant in statement before the learned trial Court. It is admitted fact on record that appellant had previously filed a petition dated 09.05.2001 under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act No. II of 1973, for restoration of the amenities of electricity and water to the tenanted premises. Vide judgment dated 8)/(Annexure A-3), the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., had dismissed the said petition filed by the appellant finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between provided the suit premises as accommodation which he had been occupying 1991. However, on a direct Court query, it has been very candidly admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant appointment as Chowkidar. It is admitted that appellant had failed to produce any letter of appointment before the ; or any other proof of his employment as Chowkidar with the defendant was in illegal f it is not proved that defendant was Trust, then in what capacity he was occupying the suit premises since the year 1991? Despite repeated counsel for the appellant is unable to give any reply to this is further to be noted that in clear contradiction of the above stand taken by the defendant in his written statement in the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the stance to the effect that he was a said stance of the appellant is totally at put forth by the appellant in his written is admitted fact on record that appellant had previously filed a petition dated 09.05.2001 under Section 10 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act No. II of 1973, for restoration of the amenities of electricity and water to the Vide judgment dated 17.03.2008 (Ex. P- 3), the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., had dismissed the said petition filed by the appellant while giving categoric finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- plaintiff and defendant and maintainable. In contrast to the said stance of the defendant in his written statement, the defendant had concocted a whole different story in submitting that he was employed as Chowkidar and had been working as such with them and the room in question was allotted to him in lieu of his appointment. As already noted above, the appellant had miserabl plaintiff-trust. 18. that the suit was not validly instituted inasmuch as, Sh. VK Goyal was not authorized to file the plaint as no Resolution has been placed on record. In support, learned counsel for the appel judgment in British Motor Car Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.) and para 15 held as -2025 (O&M) -10- plaintiff and defendant and therefore, the maintainable. In contrast to the said stance of the defendant in his written statement, the defendant had concocted a whole different story in submitting that he was employed as Chowkidar and had been working as such with them and the room in question was allotted to him in lieu of his appointment. As already noted above, the appellant had miserably failed to prove his alleged appointment with the trust. It has next been contented by l that the suit was not validly instituted inasmuch as, Sh. VK Goyal was not authorized to file the plaint as no Resolution has been placed on record. In support, learned counsel for the appel judgment in Man Kaur’s case (supra). British Motor Car Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Trust (Regd.), Law Finder Doc Id # 65157 and para 15 held as under: - “A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(3)(a) - Juristic Person which was duly registered with Registrar of Societies Trust is a juristic identity - filed by the Trust in its own name and not by the trustees No illegality. 1998(2) RCR (Rent) 735 distt. XXX XXX E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(3)(a)(i)(a) - Civil Procedure Code, Order 6 Rule 2 Pleadings - Suit for eviction - All ingredients not pleaded Where the parties properly understood each other's case and necessary evidence was adduced, technical ground of omission to plead requirement in specific terms cannot be a ground of non-suiting the landlord. 1995(1) RCR (Rent) 518 (SC), 2002(2) S.C.C. 686 relied. F. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(3)(a) - Landlord has a right to evict tenant from non residential building - Denial of right of eviction to the landlord from a non-residential building is discriminatory therefore, the said petition is not maintainable. In contrast to the said stance of the defendant in his written statement, the defendant had concocted a whole different story in submitting that he was employed as Chowkidar with the plaintiff-Trust and had been working as such with them and the room in question was allotted to him in lieu of his appointment. As already noted above, the failed to prove his alleged appointment with the It has next been contented by ld. counsel for the appellant that the suit was not validly instituted inasmuch as, Sh. VK Goyal was not authorized to file the plaint as no Resolution has been placed on record. In support, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Man Kaur’s case (supra).However, this Court in M/s British Motor Car Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sewak Sabha Charitable Law Finder Doc Id # 65157, in Head Notes A, E to G East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section Juristic Person - Premises owned by trust which was duly registered with Registrar of Societies - Ejectment petition has been name and not by the trustees - No illegality. 1998(2) RCR (Rent) 735 distt. 1998(2) RCR (Rent) 735 distt. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section Civil Procedure Code, Order 6 Rule 2 - All ingredients not pleaded - Where the parties properly understood each other's case as adduced, technical ground of omission to plead requirement in specific terms cannot be a suiting the landlord. 1995(1) RCR (Rent) 518 (SC), 2002(2) S.C.C. 686 relied. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section Landlord has a right to evict tenant from non- Denial of right of eviction to the residential building is discriminatory RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- 19. Goyal, who is the President of the plaintiff can be found in the suit instituted by the plaintiff. Even no objection to this effect was taken by the defendant 20. appellant that Sh. Alok Goyal, who depo Trust, was not competent to do so, the said argument is also liable to be rejected as admittedly, Sh. Alok Goyal is a Trustee with the plaintiff Trust. Therefore, Trust and was learned counsel for the appellant is taken at face value that Sh. Alok Goyal was not present in the year 2001 when the appellant was inducted in the suit premises, then there would few persons su have personal knowledge of the affairs of the Trust in the year 2001 -2025 (O&M) -11- and, therefore, struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 1995(2) RCR (Rent) 672 (SC), 1999-1(121) P.L.R. 482 relied. G. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3)(3)(a)(i) - Eviction sought on a number of grounds Landlord failed to prove one ground the landlord is to be disbelieved on all the grounds doctrine falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a doctrine applicable in India. XXX XXX 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly arg that the landlord is a Trust but the ejectment petition has been filed by the Trust in its own name and not by the trustees. The reliance was placed on Raj and another, 1998(2) R.C.R. 735 premises belonging to Trust have been let out, one of the trustees is authorised to receive rent from any person who is entitled to receive rent whether on his own behalf or even on behalf of other person, would be a landlord. Similarly a Trustee who is entitled to receive rent wo and, therefore, such a person would be entitled to maintain a petition for ejectment of tenant. Admittedly, the present Civil Suit was filed , who is the President of the plaintiff can be found in the suit instituted by the plaintiff. Even no objection to this effect was taken by the defendant before the Courts below As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Sh. Alok Goyal, who deposed on behalf of the plaintiff Trust, was not competent to do so, the said argument is also liable to be rejected as admittedly, Sh. Alok Goyal is a Trustee with the plaintiff . Therefore, he was well versed with the affairs of the plaintiff was competent to depose on their behalf. If the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is taken at face value that Sh. Alok Goyal was not present in the year 2001 when the appellant was inducted in the suit premises, then there would few persons su have personal knowledge of the affairs of the Trust in the year 2001 own being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 1995(2) RCR (Rent) 672 (SC), 1(121) P.L.R. 482 relied. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section Eviction sought on a number of grounds - o prove one ground - Does not mean that the landlord is to be disbelieved on all the grounds - The doctrine falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a doctrine XXX XXX The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that the landlord is a Trust but the ejectment petition has been filed by the Trust in its own name and not by the trustees. The reliance was placed on Jawahar Lal v. Dev Raj and another, 1998(2) R.C.R. 735 held that where the st have been let out, one of the trustees is authorised to receive rent from any person who is entitled to receive rent whether on his own behalf or even on behalf of other person, would be a landlord. Similarly a Trustee who is entitled to receive rent would be a landlord and, therefore, such a person would be entitled to maintain a petition for ejectment of tenant.” Admittedly, the present Civil Suit was filed through Sh. VK , who is the President of the plaintiff-Trust. As such, no infirmity can be found in the suit instituted by the plaintiff. Even no objection to before the Courts below. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the sed on behalf of the plaintiff- Trust, was not competent to do so, the said argument is also liable to be rejected as admittedly, Sh. Alok Goyal is a Trustee with the plaintiff- with the affairs of the plaintiff- competent to depose on their behalf. If the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is taken at face value that Sh. Alok Goyal was not present in the year 2001 when the appellant was inducted in the suit premises, then there would few persons surviving who would have personal knowledge of the affairs of the Trust in the year 2001. RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- 21. appellant that both the Courts below have made no independent assessment in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and merely, relied upon judgment dated Controller, Ambala Cantt. wherein it was held that there existed no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. However, the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant are mis perusal of impugned judgments shows that the matter considered in great detail by both the Courts below. All relevant factors have been considered and dealt with while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. In any event, it is not in the mouth of continue his 22. managed and administered through a registered Family Trust. Sh. VK Goyal is the President of the plaintiff Trust. As such, he appointed to f VK Goyal, who had constructed the Dharamshala in the interest of public. The defendant had entered into the possession of room of Dharamshala in the year 2001; and when the illegal act of the de was resisted he namely, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and even FIR was registered against the defendant in which he was found guilty. Admittedly, the defendant not only failed to prove landlord tenant relationship between the parties as previously stated by him; defend document to prove that he was even employed as Chowkidar or even that ₹100/- -2025 (O&M) -12- It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below have made no independent assessment in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and merely, relied upon judgment dated 17.03.2008 (Ex. P-8) rendered by the learned Ren Controller, Ambala Cantt. wherein it was held that there existed no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. However, the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant are mis perusal of impugned judgments shows that the matter considered in great detail by both the Courts below. All relevant factors have been considered and dealt with while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. In any event, it is not in the mouth of his illegal possession of the suit premises To sum up, the record bears out that the plaintiff is being managed and administered through a registered Family Trust. Sh. VK is the President of the plaintiff Trust. As such, he appointed to file the present suit. Sh. Hargolal, was the forefather of Sh. VK Goyal, who had constructed the Dharamshala in the interest of public. The defendant had entered into the possession of room of Dharamshala in the year 2001; and when the illegal act of the de was resisted he had given injuries to the Manager namely, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and even FIR was registered against the defendant in which he was found guilty. Admittedly, the defendant not only failed to prove landlord tenant relationship between the parties as previously stated by him; defendant was also unable to produce any document to prove that he was even employed as Chowkidar or even -was being deducted from his salary as rent. The changing It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below have made no independent assessment in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and merely, relied upon 8) rendered by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt. wherein it was held that there existed no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. However, the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant are mis-founded as the perusal of impugned judgments shows that the matter has been considered in great detail by both the Courts below. All relevant factors have been considered and dealt with while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. In any event, it is not in the mouth of the defendant to seek to ion of the suit premises by raising such. record bears out that the plaintiff is being managed and administered through a registered Family Trust. Sh. VK is the President of the plaintiff Trust. As such, he has been ile the present suit. Sh. Hargolal, was the forefather of Sh. VK Goyal, who had constructed the Dharamshala in the interest of public. The defendant had entered into the possession of room of Dharamshala in the year 2001; and when the illegal act of the defendant injuries to the Manager of Dharamshala, namely, Sh. Ramesh Kumar and even FIR was registered against the defendant in which he was found guilty. Admittedly, the defendant not only failed to prove landlord tenant relationship between the parties as ant was also unable to produce any document to prove that he was even employed as Chowkidar or even was being deducted from his salary as rent. The changing RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2345- versions given by the defendant amply establish the false narrative set up by him agreement with the observations of the trial Court that in view of the above facts, the onus was upon the defendant to prove that he was as authorized occupant of the suit propert above, despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the defendant is unable to inform this occupying the suit premises. 23. concurrent findings 24. 25. 25.07.2025 rishu -2025 (O&M) -13- versions given by the defendant amply establish the false narrative set to continue his illegal occupation of the suit premises. I am in agreement with the observations of the trial Court that in view of the above facts, the onus was upon the defendant to prove that he was as authorized occupant of the suit property. above, despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the defendant is unable to inform this Court as to in what capacity is the appellant occupying the suit premises. As such, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable versions given by the defendant amply establish the false narrative set illegal occupation of the suit premises. I am in agreement with the observations of the trial Court that in view of the above facts, the onus was upon the defendant to prove that he was as However, as already noticed above, despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the defendant is ourt as to in what capacity is the appellant s such, no ground is made out to interfere in the returned by both the Courts below. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.