IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Sant Bahadur ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Smt. Archana Verma ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present second appeal has ben filed by the defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff-

respondent, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking decree for mandatory injunction directing defendant to hand over the vacant and physical possession of 2 rooms/verandah and kitchen in House No. 236, Sector-9, Panchkula (hereinafter “the suit property”), to the plaintiff; and to pay mesne profit @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. from 05.04.2017 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the said house to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that father of the plaintiff namely Sh. RC Tandon being owner of the property, had allowed the defendant to reside in the suit property as he was his servant. After the death of her father, plaintiff had got the property transferred in her name. Plaintiff had requested the defendant to vacate the suit property after 3 months of death of her father. However, the defendant had illegally occupied the suit premises and instead of vacating the suit property, had started abusing and misbehaving with the plaintiff. Plaintiff had also made a complaint on 09.07.2017 to DCP, Panchkula. However, the defendant had moved a counter claim to DGP, Haryana; and also filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff which was rejected vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2017. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that accordingly, defendant is liable to make payment of Rs.10,000/- p.m. as mesne profits from the date of death of her father i.e. 05.04.2017. Hence, the present Suit was filed on 06.07.2019.

3. To the contrary, it was the case of the defendant that he was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant on the basis of an oral rent agreement entered into between the defendant and RC Tandon.

4. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs with the following directions: -

“In view of my above discussion on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and same is hereby decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to hand over the vacant and physical possession of two rooms/verandah and kitchen in H.No. 236, Sector-9, Panchkula within two months from today. Defendant is also directed to pay mesne profits @ 10,000/- per month to the plaintiff from the date of death of her father i.e. from 05.04.2017 till the date of handing over the possession of the suit property. Decree-

sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.”

5. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed with costs by learned District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated

12.08.2025. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the learned Courts below committed grave error in passing the impugned judgments as they misappreciated the evidence led by the appellant, who had examined sufficient credible witnesses. Despite the overwhelming evidence establishing tenancy, the Courts had mechanically relied on earlier litigation without independently assessing the evidence brought on record in the present suit. It is submitted that the defendant had been in continuous peaceful possession of the suit property since the past 33 years as tenant. It is contended that such long possession creates strong presumption that possession is lawful unless proved otherwise. It is argued that the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove that appellant’s possession was unauthorized, which she failed to