Sawan Ram vs Gobinda Ram And Anr. on 15 October, 1979
10. In have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rent notes Ex.P.1 and P.2 are sham transactions and Sham Sunder defendant was a tenant directly under Babu Ram, father of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable in view of Section 13(1) of Haryana Rent Restriction Act and thus the Civil Court had got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. He cited Sawan Ram v. Gbind Ram and Ors., (1980)82 P.L.R. 271 and Ram Kishan v. Harjinder Singh and Ors., (1982) 84 P.L.R. 82 to substantiate his arguments. The learned trial Court had decided this issue which was framed as issue No. 3 by the trial Court against the defendant-appellant. As there was no appeal against that finding filed by the defendant-appellant, the same issue was decided by the Lower Appellate Court against the defendant-appellant on the ground that the plaintiffs-respondents have brought the suit for possession claiming the defendant-appellant to be a trespasser. However, I allow the learned counsel for the appellant to argue on this point as it concerns the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submits that Sham Sunder defendant-appellant was neither a direct tenant of Babu Ram nor, a tenant of the plaintiff-respondents. The plaintiffs had inducted Dharam Chand as a tenant vide rent note Ex. P.1 and vide rent Note Ex. P.2, Dharam Chand had sub-let the said shop to the defendant-appellant without the consent of the plaintiffs or their father. He according to them, was a trespasser. Dharam Chand had died and after his death, they filed a suit for possession against Sham Sunder defendant-appellant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has further urged that merely the question of fact is involved in this case and the High Court cannot disturb a finding of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court.