( 2025:HHC:30456 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 284 of 2015. Decided on : 5 th September, 2025. J. S. Dass ...Appellant. Versus Baptist Missionary Society Corporation ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Piyush Dhanotia and Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Sudheer Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 14FTC/13 of 2010, affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kasauli in Civil Suit No. 371/1 of 2004. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:30456 ) 2. The suit of the respondent herein/plaintiff for decree of possession and mesne profit has been decreed by both the Courts concurrently. 3. Parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they held before the original Court. 4. The plaintiff claiming itself to be owner of the suit premises had alleged that the defendant was occupying the same as licencee and since the plaintiff was not interested to further continue the licence of the defendant, it was revoked and hence, the prayer for possession of the suit premises was made. 5. Defendant in his written statement besides raising the legal objections as to the maintainability, cause of action locus standi and estoppel etc., contended on merits that he was occupying the suit premises as tenant and he had been inducted as tenant by the B.U.N.I. The defendant further claimed that he had been regularly paying rent to BUNI. He categorically claimed that relationship of tenant and landlord existing between him and BUNI. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court. 3 ( 2025:HHC:30456 ) 1. Whether the defendant is licensee to plaintiff and the said licence stand revoked by way of notice, as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession, as alleged?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mesne profits, as alleged?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no legal, valid and subsisting cause of action?OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute and maintain the suit, as alleged?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence, as alleged?OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this Court and further effect of civil suit pending before Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, as alleged?OPD. 10. Whether the defendant has been inducted as a tenant by BUNI and has been regularly paying rent, if so its effect?OPD. 11. Relief. 7. Issues No.1 to 3 were decided in affirmative and other issues were decided in negative. The plaintiff was held to be owner of the suit premises. The plea of defendant that 4 ( 2025:HHC:30456 ) he was a tenant inducted by BUNI was disbelieved. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed as noticed above. 8. The first appeal of defendant filed under Section 96 of the Code also did not succeed. Learned First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court. 9. It was noticed by the learned First Appellate Court that during the pendency of the appeal defendant had sought an amendment to the written statement, which was declined by dismissal of the application. As observed by learned First Appellate Court, by amending the written statement the defendant wanted to raise a plea that he was under misconception that BUNI and plaintiff were sister concerns but later it had transpired that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. 10. The instant appeal was admitted on 20.06.2015 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether both the courts below erred in appreciating provisions of law applicable, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them in its right perspective thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 2. Whether the learned courts below have come to a wrong conclusion that appellant is a licence holder and not a tenant despite oral as 5 ( 2025:HHC:30456 ) well as documentary evidence having been brought on record, thus vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 3. Whether in the absence of any proof of the ownership over suit property of the plaintiff, suit is maintainable against the defendant? 11. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Piyush Dhanotia and Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocates for the appellant/defendant and Mr. Sudheer Thakur, learned senior counsel with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff and have also gone through the entire record of the case minutely. 12. Both the learned Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. As noticed above, even the defendant during the pendency of first appeal had made an admission to this effect by seeking to incorporate the amendment in the written statement. Though, the amendment had not been allowed, nonetheless, the admission made by the defendant cannot be ignored. That being so, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not interfere with such concurrent findings of fact without there being any material to establish the findings to be perverse. In view of the material established on record, no illegality much less 6 ( 2025:HHC:30456 ) perversity can be said to have been committed by the Courts below while rendering the aforesaid findings of fact. 13. Once the title of plaintiff had been established, the defendant could have succeeded, only by proving his better title. Noticeably, the defendant had not claimed himself to be a tenant under the plaintiff. His specific case was that he had been inducted tenant by BUNI and he had been also paying rent to said BUNI. Since, the BUNI had no right in the suit premises, the alleged relationship between the defendant and the BUNI, if any, would have no consequence, as far as the rights of plaintiff are concerned. Thus, the defendant had clearly failed to establish his plea of tenancy in the suit premises. 14. Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendant/appellant has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. vs. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1262 to assert that the long possession of defendant itself was sufficient to prove tenancy. In my considered view, defendant cannot derive any benefit of the ratio laid down in Associated Hotels (supra) simply for the reason that the defendant himself had not claimed the right of tenancy under the lawful owner. In this view of the matter, the status of the 7 ( 2025:HHC:30456 ) defendant could not be ascertained to be other than licencee as claimed by the lawful owner of the suit premises i.e. the plaintiff. 15. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Senior Advocate further contended that the learned First Appellate Court had wrongfully rejected the application of the defendant/appellant for leading additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code. He would submit that defendant intended to place and prove on record rent receipt issued in his favour by one Mr. Ashok Masih, who allegedly was the authorized representative of the plaintiff. The argument so raised deserves to be rejected for the reasons that firstly, the defendant could not claim a right to produce additional evidence at appellate stage, he had to satisfy the conditions enshrined in Rule 27 of Order 41 and secondly, in light of specific finding that the plaintiff was the owner, the involvement of said Ashok Masih would not be of any relevance more particularly keeping in view the averments made in the written statement by the defendant wherein it was stated that the suit was result of manipulation etc., of one Ashok Masih who was alleged to be an employee in a bank and claimed himself to be a priest. It was not the case of the defendant that Ashok Masih was the authorised representative of the plaintiff and in that capacity 8 ( 2025:HHC:30456 ) he was paid rent by the defendant. Rather the case of the defendant was otherwise with the allegation against the said Ashok Masih as noticed above. 16. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. Substantial questions of law are answered in negative and against the defendant/appellant. 17. In result, the instant appeal is dismissed being without any merits and the impugned judgments and decrees are affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 18. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 5th September, 2025. (jai)