KULDIP SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below.

(2.) PREDECESSOR -in -interest of the respondent, namely, Sohan Singh is claiming himself to be tenant in the suit filed for permanent injunction and seeking protection not to dispossess him forcibly. The landlord set up the case of surrender of tenancy by the tenant/plaintiff. The trial Court rejected the theory of surrender of tenancy by the tenant and held that tenant remained in possession on the strength of rent note duly executed by the tenant and admitted by the parties to the suit. The appellant also relied upon some electricity bills which pertain to the year 2001 which includes the period of admitted tenancy and thereafter. The trial Court also did not accept this evidence in favour of the landlord on the plea that possession of the bill did not depict the actual possession of the shop. The local commissioner was also appointed by the trial court who visited the spot and submitted his report stating therein that both Raj Kumar and Sohan Singh are claiming those articles lying in the suit premises. The local commissioner also referred to the statements of some persons who are stated to have informed the Local Commissioner that Raj Kumar is in possession of the suit premises Raj Kumar is the person who is claimed to be in possession of the demised premises on behalf of the landlord after the alleged surrender by the tenant. The trial court rejected the local commissioner's report on two counts; firstly, that the local Commissioner was only required to give factual report regarding the spot inspection and he was not permitted to take any evidence. Otherwise, also in the report, no evidence was appended regarding the statements made by any person. In my opinion trial court has rightly rejected the report of the local commissioner Wherein instead of mentioning the actual and factual position, it was stated that both Raj Kumar and Sohan Singh are claiming possession and that Raj Kumar is in possession for the last 1 -1/2 months, on the basis of hearsay evidence. The trial Court further recorded the findings that no date of alleged surrender of the demised premises by the tenant, has been indicated in the written statement or even in the evidence led by the landlord.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued before me that the trial court should have accepted the evidence of the Local Commissioner or the electricity bills which were in possession of the appellant. All these questions fall within the realm of appreciation of evidence. It is not the quantity but the quality of evidence which carry weight in formulating the opinion of the court. Both the courts have concurrently held that the tenant is in possession and rejected the theory of alleged surrender by the tenant.