The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person in possession as a trespasser after the determination of a lease period is not entitled to protection under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. Additionally, the admissibility of an unregistered lease deed of agricultural land was clarified.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be in possession as Gair Mourusi over the agricultural land comprising in Khewat No. 1522, Khatoni No. 2344, Rect. No. 225 measuring 122 kanals 2 marlas situated in village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad having tube-well, electricity connection bearing No. KHAP 207 in his name in Killa No. 26(1-2) and his house in Killa No. 26, in which he is allegedly residing from the last 27-28 years continuously and also having another Engine Tubewell Bore in killa No. 26(1-2). It is alleged that earlier Ram Dass Chela Garib Dass was the owner of the aforesaid land (hereinafter Referred to as a suit land), which is now recorded in the ownership of the defendant vide Rapat No. 508 dated 8.8.2003. The defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly which led to the filing of the present suit. The defendants case is that the suit property was leased out by Ram Dass Chela Garib Dass to the plaintiff with effect from 12.7.1986 to June 1994 for a period of 9 years for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, and with effect from 29.5.1996 to 28.5.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-. After the expiry of the lease period on 28.5.2005, the suit land was to revert back to the defendant but the plaintiff illegally and unlawfully wanted to grab the suit land and filed the present suit. The defendant also filed a counter-claim separately seeking a decree for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to handover vacant peaceful possession to the defendant and to pay Rs. 17800/- per year as damages for unauthorized occupation of the suit land. The counter claim was also contested by the plaintiff by filing reply in which it was alleged that after the expiry of lease, plaintiff has become statutory tenant and his tenancy is protected by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. It was also alleged that plaintiff is liable to pay fix rent of Rs. 3000/- per annum and not the amount which has been claimed by the defendant as damages. From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 29.9.2008, which are reproduced as under :-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is Gair Maurusi in possession of the agricultural land mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint ? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the defendant/counter claimant is owner of agricultural land mentioned in para No. 1 of the counter claim ? OP counter claimant

4. If issue No. 3 is proved, whether the defendant/counter claimant is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OP counter claimant.

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court ? OPD

8. Relief."

2. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 31.3.2009 dismissed the suit but allowed counter-claim directing the plaintiff to vacate suit property and handover peaceful possession to the defendant.

3. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff had preferred First Appeal in which the defendant also filed cross-objections seeking more mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit land by the plaintiff. The learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009 dismissed both the appeal, filed by the plaintiff as well as the cross-objections filed by the defendant.

4. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, the plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal, however, no appeal has been filed by the defendant pursuant to dismissal of his cross-objections by the First Appellate Court.

5. In this case, notice of motion was issued. On the re