alleged payment of rent equivalent to land revenue and cesses, he claim to have acquired occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and, by virtue thereof, proprietary rights under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Ves"ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953.

3. The defendant did not contest the proceedings before the trial Court and was proceeded against ex parte.

4. The trial Court, upon apprecia"on of the evidence led by the plain"ff, dismissed the suit on 22.08.2016. The First Appellate Court re- appraised the en"re record and concurred with the trial Court insofar as the claim of ownership was concerned.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellants and has perused the record.

6. The founda"on of the plain"ffs’ claim rests upon acquisi"on of occupancy rights. Under Sec"on 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, a tenant acquires a right of occupancy only upon strict sa"sfac"on of statutory condi"ons. These condi"ons include con"nuous occupa"on for the prescribed statutory period and payment of rent not exceeding land revenue and rates and cesses. Sec"on 8, being residuary in nature, does not dilute the rigour of Sec"on 5 but merely enables recogni"on of occupancy rights in special circumstances, provided founda"onal facts are proved.

7. A careful examina"on of the pleadings and evidence reveals that the plain"ff has not established as to when and by whom the tenancy was created. The plaint is conspicuously silent as to the precise date of commencement of tenancy, the terms thereof, and the iden"ty of the person, who inducted the plain"ff or his predecessor-in-interest as tenant. Tenancy is a bilateral rela"onship arising from consensus and cannot be presumed merely from long possession.

8. The plain"ff has relied upon jamabandis commencing from the year 1979–1980 onwards. These entries describe him as “gair maurusi” tenant. However, mere recording as gair maurusi tenant does not confer occupancy rights. There is no entry in the revenue record showing him as occupancy tenants or maurusi tenants.

9. Equally significant is the failure to prove payment of rent in the manner required by law. Though it has been asserted that rent was ₹4/- per kanal per annum, no rent receipts have been produced. There is no documentary evidence to show actual payment. There is also no evidence to demonstrate that the rent allegedly paid did not exceed land revenue and cesses. The constancy of rent from the incep"on of tenancy has also not been established. In absence of proof of these essen"al ingredients, the statutory presump"on under Sec"on 5(2) of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 cannot be invoked.

10. The ves"ng contemplated under the 1953 Act operates only in favour of a person, who was an occupancy tenant within the meaning of law on the appointed date. The plain"ff has failed to sa"sfy the statutory condi"ons as on the relevant date so as to a@ract ves"ng of proprietary rights.

11. The Courts below have concurrently held that long possession as gair maurusi tenant, without proof of statutory requirements, does not mature into occupancy rights. These findings are based upon proper apprecia"on of oral and documentary evidence. It is not shown that any material evidence has been ignored or that the conclusions are perverse.

12. The jurisdic"on of this Court under Sec"on 100 CPC is confined to substan"al ques"ons of law. Re-apprecia"on of evidence or subs"tu"on of factual findings is impermissible, unless it is demonstrated that the findings suffer from perversity or are based on misapplica"on of law. No such infirmity has been established in the present case.

13. The First Appellate Court has already protected the possession of the plain"ffs by restraining their dispossession except in due course of law. That protec"on adequately safeguards their possessory rights in accordance with law.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no substan"al ques"on of law arising for considera"on. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts belo