The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and failure to substantiate a tenancy claim results in dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

1. Appellant is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, vide which judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Mohali was upheld and the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for possession as well as recovery of damages for illegal use of his premises, stood decreed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present appeal are that with respect to house No. 1683 (ground & first floor) situated at Phase-3B2, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession with further prayer for recovery of Rs.2,40,000/- for use and occupation of the said house illegally from April 2012 to April 2018 onwards till its vacation and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the said house till the delivery of possession. Respondent-plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of demised property vide mutation dated 03.01.1979 and also averred in the plaint that he raised roof of the said house on 08.03.2009. It was further averred in the plaint that the appellant/defendant prepared a fictitious rent-deed dated 27.7.2006 and forcibly occupied the house in the month of April, 2012 after beating his Chowkidar, namely, Mukesh Kumar. Respondent/plaintiff even reported the matter to police as well vide letters dated 07.04.2012, 09.04.2012 and 16.04.2012 but to no avail. Accordingly, suit was filed for vacant possession of the demised premises as well as for the recovery of damages by adding that he wanted to settle and start business in S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

2.1 On the other hand, stand taken by appellant/defendant was that rent-deed was neither forged; nor fictitious and that the appellant/defendant took the demised premises on rent in the year 2006 from the authorized agent of respondent/plaintiff. Initially, the relationship between the appellant/defendant & respondent/plaintiff was good and cordial, but later, some of his agents started coming to the house and threatening him and other family members to vacate the same on the pretext that they were to sell the said house to someone else after getting it vacated from them.

2.2 Vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed the by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, suit filed at the instance of respondent was decreed as appellant failed to prove rent deed in his favour. It was further held by the learned trial Court that respondent/plaintiff was entitled for sum of Rs.2,40,000/- for use and occupation of the house in suit illegally during the period from April, 2012 to April, 2013 and further amount of Rs.6,60,000/- for additional use and occupation of the house from May, 2013 to January, 2016 along with that and additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also directed to be paid by appellant to respondent in the shape of damages.

2.3 Aggrieved thereof, the respondent/ defendant filed first Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, who vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2024, not only upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, but also held that respondent was entitled for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/- from February 2016 till May, 2024, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- (100 months X Rs.20,000/-).

2.4 It is the aforesaid two judgments and decrees which have been assailed by way of present Regular Second Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant came in possession of the property in question prior to April, 2012, contrary to the story as alleged by the respondent-plaintiff in his plaint. In order to establish his assertion, learned counsel referred to Exh.D-2 (Ration Card) wherein it was recorded that the said document was prepared in the name of appellant-defendant by the authorities on 26.03.2012. He also submitted that ration card produced by PW-5 in support of his deposition as Exh.PW-5/F thus, cannot