JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- The defendants (now appellants), have filed this appeal, for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridabad, vide which, the suit of the plaintiffs for possession, directing the defendants, to vacate the property, in dispute, was decreed, and the judgement and decree dated 06.04.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide which, the appeal against the judgement and decree of the trial Court, was dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the co-owners of the property, described in para 1 of the plaint, as portion No. 11/1, measuring 585.05 sq. yds. (107'. 9" x 49' x 3") being part of industrial property (TCC), bearing khasra No. /Rectangle No. 36, killa No. 11 Min, 12 Min, 13 Min, 18 Min, 19, 20 Min, 21 Min, 22, 23 Min, Rectangle No. 46, killa. No. 1 Min, 2 Min, 3 Min, known as TCC situated near Sector 10, within the Municipal Corporation area Faridabad. It was stated that earlier M/s Technological Consultant Centre, was the owner in possession of the aforesaid property, which went into voluntary liquidation, and appointed Sh. J.B. Dada Chand Ji, its liquidator, who sold the property, in dispute, to the plaintiffs, for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,65,00,000/-, and executed and got registered the sale deed dated 30.04.1997, in favour of the plaintiffs. It was further stated that the defendants being the employees of M/s. Technological Consultant Centre, were permitted to use a portion of the said property, as licencees. It was further stated that after M/s Technological Consultant Centre, went into liquidation and after the sale of the property thereof, the possession of the defendant qua the disputed premises, became unauthorized and illegal, as their contract of service with M/s Technological Consultant Centre, came to an end, resulting into automatic revocation of the licence, but they failed to hand over the vacant possession of the same either to M/s Technological Consultant Centre, or the plaintiffs. It was further stated that the defendants were many a time, asked to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, to the plaintiffs and pay damages for three years for use and occupation of the suit property, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for possession of recovery of damages was filed. 3. It was further stated that the defendants were many a time, asked to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, to the plaintiffs and pay damages for three years for use and occupation of the suit property, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for possession of recovery of damages was filed. 3. The defendants put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded, that the suit was time barred. It was denied that the plaintiffs were the co-owners of the suit property. It was further stated that the boundaries of the suit property given by them were wrong. It was admitted that M/s Technological Consultant Centre, was the owner of the suit property. It denied that they defendants were employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre. It was further stated that the were inducted as licencees in the property, in question, being employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre. It was also denied that after M/s. Technological Consultant Centre, went into liquidation, the possession of the defendants became unauthorized, and illegal. It was further stated that defendant No.1 Bhajan Lal, paid a sum of Rs.35,000/-, as the total sale consideration to Dhruv Kumar, in the year 1994, and he constructed a residential house from his own funds over a portion of the suit property sold in his favour. It was further stated that Dhruv Kumar, promised defendant No.1, to get the sale deed executed, but he had not executed the same, in his favour. It was further stated that Kishan Bahadur, the other defendant, paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/-, to Dhruv Kumar, in the year 1994, of his portion, and constructed a residential house, over the same. It was further stated that Sunheri Lal, another defendant, paid a sum of Rs. 32,800/-, to Dhruv Kumar, in the year 1994, and constructed a residential house, from his own funds. It was further stated that, they were enjoying the peaceful possession, as owners of the suit property. It was denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the property, in dispute, and recovery of damages for use and occupation of the property by the defendants. 4. It was further stated that, they were enjoying the peaceful possession, as owners of the suit property. It was denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the property, in dispute, and recovery of damages for use and occupation of the property by the defendants. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were struck:- i) Whether the plaintiffs are the co-owners of property called as portion No. 11/1 as precisely detailed in para No.1 of the plaint by virtue of a sale deed dated 30.04.97? OPP ii) Whether the possession of the defendants qua the disputed premises became unauthorized and illegal as they failed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs? OPP iii) Whether the plaintiffs have a legal right to get the defendants ejected from the defendants premises and to obtain the possession through the present suit alongwith the damages/compensation for the house and compensation @ Rs.2000/­ per month? OPP iv) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD v) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD vi) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD vii) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decided issues No.1 and 2, in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants. Issue No.3, was partly decided, in favour of the plaintiffs, and partly, in favour of the defendants. Issues No.4, 5, and 6, were also decided, in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants. Ultimately, the suit of the plaintiffs for possession, directing the defendants, to vacate the premises, in question, was decreed. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgement dated 06.04.2009. 7. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendants (now appellants). 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Courts below, were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the defendants were inducted as licencees, being employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, when it went into liquidation, in the property, in dispute. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Courts below, were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the defendants were inducted as licencees, being employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, when it went into liquidation, in the property, in dispute. He further submitted that the official liquidator had auctioned the property of M/s. Technological Consultant Centre, to M/s Renuka Estate Agency, for a sum of Rs. 3,65,00,000/-, and out of this sale consideration, M/s Renuka Estate Agency, paid a sum of Rs. 2.2 crores to the liquidator, and removed the movable property, which was not even worth Rs. 50,00,000/-. He further submitted that, later on, M/s Renuka Estate Agency, could not meet its commitment for the payment of remaining auction money, and, therefore, for the remaining sum of Rs.1,63,00,000/- the suit property, was sold to the plaintiffs. He further submitted that M/s Renuka Estate Agency, being the auction purchaser of the suit property, with the permission of liquidator, sold various parcels of the same, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3, who paid the entire sale consideration of their respective portions to it (M/s Renuka Estate Agency), and, therefore, they were put, in possession thereof, and acquired right therein. He further submitted that, as such, the possession of the appellants, could not be termed as illegal or unauthorized. He further submitted that the Courts below, were, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the appellants, being in illegal possession of the property, in dispute, the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession thereof. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellants, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is evident from para 36 of the judgement of the Appellate Court, that bare perusal of the testimony of DW1, DW2, and DW3, proved beyond doubt, that the defendants were employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, and the said company closed its operation. It is further evident from para 36 of the said judgement that the company known as M/s Technological Consultant Centre, went into winding up proceedings, and liquidator J.B. Dada Chand Ji, appointed. It is further evident from para 36 of the said judgement that the company known as M/s Technological Consultant Centre, went into winding up proceedings, and liquidator J.B. Dada Chand Ji, appointed. Vide sale deed P1, the property, in dispute, was sold to the plaintiffs (now respondents), as was evident from the statements of PW1 to PW14. M/s Renuka Estate Agency, in favour of which the Auction of the property of M/s Technological Consultant Centre was made, by liquidator, could not fulfill its commitment of payment of a major portion of the Auction money, as a result of which the property, in dispute was, sold in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants (now appellants) were only the employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre. There is nothing on record that Dhruv Kumar or M/s Renuka Estate Agency, was ever authorized by the official liquidator, to deal with the property, dispute, in any manner or sell the same. Once no authority was given to M/s Renuka Estate Agency for sale of property of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, or any portion thereof, Dhruv Kumar, was not competent to execute any agreement to sell, in respect of any portion of the suit property favour of defendants. The defendants, being employees, were only inducted as licencees in the property, in dispute. Their licence was revoked, and on their failure to surrender possession of the property, in question they became unauthorized occupants. In these circumstances, the defendants (now appellants), had no right or title, in the property, in question. The defendants, being employees, were only inducted as licencees in the property, in dispute. Their licence was revoked, and on their failure to surrender possession of the property, in question they became unauthorized occupants. In these circumstances, the defendants (now appellants), had no right or title, in the property, in question. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, that the defendants were only employees of M/s Technological Consultant Centre, which went into liquidation; that they were inducted as licencees and their licence was ultimately revoked; that the property, in dispute, was sold in favour of the plaintiffs vide sale deed P1 and they became owners thereof; that M/s Renuka Estate Agency, being unsuccessful Auction purchaser or one Dhruv Kumar, on their behalf, was never authorized by the official liquidator, to deal with property, in any manner, or sell the same and, as such, was incompetent to enter into agreement to sell; that after the revocation of the defendants they were merely unauthorized occupants of the property and, as such, the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the property, in dispute, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not warrant, any interference. Thus, no substantial question of law, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. ------------------