Harish Sharma Vs Azad Singh and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Harish Sharma Vs Azad Singh and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the decree of mandatory injunction for vacant possession in favour of the plaintiffs stand affirmed (claim for mesne profits having been declined below).

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant was in possession of the suit property (basement) as a licensee or as a tenant. +2 more

Court's answer

There is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below; the defendant was not a tenant but a licensee whose license stood terminated, the finding being based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Ratio / Principle

The alleged admission describing the defendant as a tenant in the plaint in a suit to which he was not a party is not conclusive: the plaintiff clarified during testimony that the statement was a clerical mistake, and contrary judicial findings in proceedings directly between the present parties prevail over it.

Key takeaways

Applying the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basant Singh v. Janki Singh (AIR 1967 SC 341), an admission may be used as evidence but is not conclusive and can be explained.ratio¶35
While under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden lies on the party asserting a fact, once the plaintiffs specifically pleaded and testified that the defendant was a licensee and the license was terminated, it was incumbent on the defendant to rebut; his failure to produce any rent receipt, evidence of electricity connection or documentary proof of tenancy supports the plaintiffs' version of use under a license.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (RSA No.624 of 2020 (O&M)) by the defendant, Harish Sharma, against the concurrent findings of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiffs' (Azad Singh and Balvir Singh) suit for mandatory injunction directing delivery of vacant possession of a basement given to him on license at ₹10,000 per month, with the claim for mesne profits declined. The Courts below found the defendant to be a licensee whose license was terminated in September 2009, and not a tenant as he claimed (alleged induction in 2005 at ₹3,000 monthly rent with ₹6,000 pagri). Earlier proceedings between the same parties — the defendant's suit for permanent injunction, Civil Suit No. 280/2010 (Trial Court judgment dated 31.08.2013 finding tenancy unproved, affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 131/2013), and his petition under Section 10 of the Haryana Rent Act dismissed by the Rent Controller, Rohtak on 04.08.2015 — did not uphold his claim of tenancy. The alleged admission in para 8 of the plaint in the suit between the plaintiffs and their family members (Balbir Singh & another v. Baljit Singh & another) describing the defendant as a tenant was held not binding or conclusive: the defendant was not a party to that suit, the plaintiff clarified it was a clerical mistake, and, per Basant Singh v. Janki Singh, AIR 1967 SC 341, an admission may be used as evidence but is not conclusive and can be explained. Although under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden lies on the party asserting a fact, once the plaintiffs pleaded and testified to the license and its termination, it was incumbent on the defendant to rebut; his failure to produce any rent receipt, electricity connection or documentary proof of tenancy supported the license version. Finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. — Deepak Gupta, J. (Pronounced 14.07.2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: July 07, 2025 Pronounced on: July 14, 2025

RSA No.624 of 2020(O&M)

Harish Sharma . . . . Appellant

Vs.

Azad Singh and another . . . . Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued By:- Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate for the respondents.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This is an appeal filed by the defendant challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit for mandatory injunc�on filed by the plain�ffs, Azad Singh and Balvir Singh (respondents herein), was decreed by the Trial Court on 20.12.2018, and affirmed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.11.2019.

The plain�ffs claimed that the basement area of their building (suit property) was given to the defendant on license basis for ₹10,000 per month for keeping machines, with a clear understanding that the premises would be vacated on demand. Upon requiring the property in 2009, they asked the defendant to vacate, but he refused. Consequently, the license was terminated in September 2009. Instead of vaca�ng, the defendant allegedly broke open the lock and demolished a joint wall. A police complaint was made, and the defendant undertook to hand over possession but failed to comply. The plain�ffs therefore sought:

Sarita Rani 2025.07.14 19:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

RSA No.624 of 2020 (O&M)

2025:PHHC:084527

A decree of mandatory injunc�on direc�ng delivery of vacant possession, and

Mesne profits from the date of license termina�on �ll possession was delivered.

The defendant contended that he was inducted as a tenant in 2005 at a monthly rent of ₹3,000, along with a pagri payment of ₹6,000. He denied being a licensee and opposed the suit.

Based on evidence led by the par�es, the Trial Court concluded that the defendant was in possession as a licensee and not as a tenant. The claim for mesne profits was declined, but the relief of mandatory injunc�on was granted. The First Appellate Court upheld these findings.

The appellant's primary conten�on is that in an earlier suit between the plain�ffs and their brother Baljeet Singh, the plain�ffs had described the defendant as a tenant. It was argued that such admission was binding and cons�tuted the best evidence. It was also contended that the First Appellate Court erroneously shi�ed the burden of proof onto the defendant.

Upon hearing learned counsel for both par�es and perusal of the paper-book, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.

The defendant had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunc�on in 2010 (Civil Suit No. 280/2010), claiming tenancy rights. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.08.2013, found that the defendant failed to prove his status as a tenant. However, as he was in possession, the suit was decreed to the limited extent that he could not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. The Appellate Court, in Civil Appeal No. 131/2013, affirmed the judgment, observing that tenancy determina�on was not essen�al in that suit for injunc�on.

Separately, the defendant also filed a pe��on under Sec�on 10 of the Haryana Rent Act seeking restora�on of electricity supply, again

Sarita Rani 2025.07.14 19:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 2 of 4

RSA No.624 of 2020 (O&M)

2025:PHHC:084527

claiming tenancy. The Rent Controller, Rohtak, dismissed the pe��on on 04.08.2015, holding that tenancy was not proved. No appeal was filed against this order.

These earlier verdicts, rendered in proceedings, where the present par�es were li�ga�ng inter se, did not uphold the defendant’s claim of tenancy.

The defendant relies on an alleged admission in a separate suit filed by the plain�ffs against their family members (Balbir Singh & another v. Baljit Singh & another) , where in para 8 of the plaint, the defendant was described as a tenant. However, as rightly no�ced by the courts below:

The defendant was not a party to that suit.

During tes�mony in the present case, the plain�ff clarified that the statement was a clerical mistake.

The Courts below have correctly held that such an admission is not conclusive, especially in view of contrary judicial findings in proceedings directly between the present par�es.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basant Singh v. Janki Singh , AIR 1967 SC 341 , has held that an admission may be used as evidence but is not conclusive and can be explained.

While the general rule under Sec�on 101 of the Indian Evidence Act is that the burden lies on the party asser�ng a fact, once the plain�ffs have specifically pleaded and tes�fied that the defendant was a licensee and the license was terminated, it was incumbent on the defendant to rebut this claim. He failed to produce: any rent receipt, evidence of electricity connec�on, or any documentary proof of tenancy. In fact, the absence of electricity and lack of rent receipts support the plain�ffs’ version that the premises were merely used by the defendant for storing equipment under a license.

Sarita Rani 2025.07.14 19:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 3 of 4

RSA No.624 of 2020 (O&M)

2025:PHHC:084527

As such, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The finding that the defendant was not a tenant, but a licensee whose license stood terminated, is based on proper apprecia�on of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit .

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

July 14, 2025 Sarita

Sarita Rani 2025.07.14 19:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Page 4 of 4