L.N.Mittal, J.

1 This is second appeal by legal representatives of the original plaintiff Brij Mohan Nanda since deceased, having remained only partly successful in both the Courts below.

2 Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly from the suit property being a shop situated in Sohna, in which the plaintiff is tenant under the defendants, and from disconnecting electricity and water connections from the suit premises.

3 The plaintiff s case is that the plaintiff is tenant in the disputed shop under the defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- for 7-8 years before the filing of the suit (filed on 15.03.1996) for running business of Soda Water Works. Defendants were adamant to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the suit property.

4 The defendants inter alia pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also alleged that the suit property is not a shop, but is a godovvn. It was initially let out to the plaintiff. Its monthly rent was Rs. 500/- in the year 1976. Plaintiff failed to pay rent for 2 years and, therefore, gave vacant possession of the suit property to the defendants in the year 1984. However, again the property was leased out to the plaintiff for manufacturing soda water for one season of 9 months from February 1988 to October 1988 for consolidated amount of Rs. 8000/-. The process continued each year, but lease money was raised to Rs. 9000/-. However, on 31.10.1995, the plaintiff failed to deliver back the possession of the suit property to the defendants and, therefore, possession of the plaintiff is unlawful and without any authority.

5 Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006 held that possession over the suit property stands admitted, but the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is occupying the suit property as tenant. Consequently, suit was decreed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly from the disputed shop and from disconnecting electricity and water connections, except in due course of law. First appeal preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff and also first appeal preferred by defendants have been dismissed by-learned A dditional District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2007. upholding the aforesaid finding of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff.

6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

7 The following substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal:-

" Whether the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is occupying the suit property as tenant is illegal a nd perverse and, therefore, not sustainable in law."

8 It is not disputed even by counsel for the respondents that the suit property is situated in Municipal Town of Sohna and, therefore, provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, Haryana Rent Act) are applicable to the suit property.

9 Learned counsel for the appellants contended that even after the lease period expired in October 1995 as pleaded by the defendants, even then in view of protection provided to the tenantplaintiff by the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act, possession of the appellants over the suit property is as tenants and not as trespassers. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention has relied on a judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case Om Wati Gaur and others v. Jitendra Kumar and others, 2002(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 695 : AIR 2003 SC 229 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Manohan Nath etc. v. Smt. Kesra Devi etc., 1980 CLJ (Civil) 100.

10 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that after expiry of lease per