JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Saroj Devi – plaintiff, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. 2. Plaintiff-appellant claimed that she is in possession of the suit property, which is part of Vedic Putri Pathshala (in short – the Pathshala) as tenant since April 2003. B. K. Duggal – Manager of the Pathshala let out the suit property to the plaintiff and had been receiving rent from her. The plaintiff is residing there with her husband and two minor children. Defendant has no right or interest in the suit property. However, he is residing near the suit property. He threatened to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom forcibly and illegally. Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendant from doing so. 3. The defendant broadly controverted the plaint allegations. It was denied that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property or is tenant therein. It was pleaded that B. K. Duggal was Manager of the Pathshala and he has been expelled on account of criminal misappropriation of funds of the Pathshala. Criminal case has also been registered against him and his son. Pathshala is run by Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, Punjab – a registered Society, but the said Society has not been impleaded as party. Defendant is Secretary thereof. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 11.08.2009, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the appellant contended that the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that she is not proved to be tenant therein, but even on the basis of established possession, the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gone Rajamma and others vs. Chennamaneni Mohan Rao reported as 2010 (3) Civil Court Cases 0336, wherein it was held that even a trespasser or wrongdoer in settled possession is entitled to protection and cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. 7. 7. Counsel for the appellant also contended even in the second appeal, this Court can interfere in finding of fact recorded by the courts below, if approach of the courts below is erroneous or if the core issue involved in the case is not decided by the courts below. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court namely Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others reported as 2011 (1) Civil Court Cases 0001. 8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. 9. Plaintiff’s evidence is not sufficient to prove that she is in possession of the suit property either as tenant or otherwise. Plaintiff’s whole claim is based on alleged tenancy created in her favour by B. K. Duggal, who was admittedly Manager of the Pathshala. However, he has been removed from the said post and even criminal case had been registered against him and his son regarding misappropriation of funds of the Pathshala. Even otherwise, said Manager had no authority to let out the school premises to the plaintiff. It may be added that even photograph produced by the plaintiff herself depicts existence of black-board in the disputed room. It would show that the said room is a class-room. The plaintiff, in connivance with B. K. Duggal – Manager, wants to usurp the school premises, which cannot be permitted. The plaintiff is not proved to be in possession of the premises on the basis of alleged rent receipts issued by B. K. Duggal – Manager of the Pathshala. On the other hand, B. K. Duggal has affirmed affidavit that he had not issued any receipt to plaintiff or anybody else nor he received any rent from the plaintiff. He also affirmed affidavit that the Pathshala is being run by the registered Society and he had no right or authority to manage the affairs of the Pathshala since 2004. He also admitted that defendant Davinder Sharma is Secretary of the Society. However, defendant has been sued in personal capacity and not as Secretary of the Society. Society has also not been sued. 10. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff is not tenant over the suit property and is not in possession thereof is fully justified by the evidence on record. However, defendant has been sued in personal capacity and not as Secretary of the Society. Society has also not been sued. 10. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff is not tenant over the suit property and is not in possession thereof is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding cannot be said to be erroneous so as to warrant interference by this Court in second appeal. Judgment in the case of Municipal Committee (supra) is not at all applicable to the instant case. Similarly, judgment in the case of Gone Rajamma (supra) is also not applicable to the instant case because plaintiff is not proved to be in possession of the suit property, much less in settled possession thereof. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. -------------------