Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge : This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 1.9.2011 passed by the learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 33-CA/13 of 2009. 2. ‘Key facts’ necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for the sake of convenience) filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for the sake of convenience) for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering, demolishing or raising any construction in the land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.373min/621, Khasra No.503/161 min, measuring 1 Bigha 8 Biswas, situated at Mohal Paonta Sahib, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.. According to the plaintiff, he along with Ashok Kumar, Surinder Kumar, sons of late Sh. Jagat Ram, Rajinder Kumar, Anil Kumar, Shyam Singh were tenants on payment of bilmukta salana Rs.12/- over the suit land under the State of Himachal Pradesh since 1964. The plaintiffs and other tenants had become owners by virtue of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.. The plaintiff and other tenants had constructed their residential houses over the suit land since the time of their forefathers and were residing with their families. The electricity meter and water connections were in their names. The plaintiff applied for sanction of the map qua construction of three shops over the suit land before defendant No.1. He also deposited the site plan and the necessary fee of Rs.375/- in the name of his son, Rajender Kumar. Defendant No.1 issued a receipt bearing No. 46 of Book No.71, dated 17.2.2003. The plaintiff was under bona fide belief that the Municipal Council sanctioned the site plan and accordingly in the month of March 2004 constructed three shops over the suit land. The employees of defendant No.1 entered the suit land and threatened to demolish the shop on 17.1.2005. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants, the State of Himachal Pradesh is owner of the suit land which is possessed by defendant No.1 being instrumentality of the State. The plaintiff and other persons mentioned in the plaint are not tenants over the suit land. They are trespassers with no right, title and interest. The revenue entries in their favour are collusive and fraudulent. The plaintiff and other persons mentioned in the plaint are not tenants over the suit land. They are trespassers with no right, title and interest. The revenue entries in their favour are collusive and fraudulent. The notice was served upon the plaintiff under Section 203 of the M.C. Act on 25.1.2003. The notice was replied on 7.2.2003. However, fact of the matter is that the plaintiff and Rajender completed the construction work of these shops without approval and sanction of building plan from M.C. Paonta Sahib. The defendant No.1 then again served the plaintiff and Rajender with a notice under Section 211 dated 12.5.2004 for demolishing the illegal construction. Defendant No.1 vide resolution dated 1.5.2004 decided to demolish illegal and unauthorized construction and served the notice which was replied by the plaintiff and Rajender on 26.6.2004. The building plan was returned to Rajender Singh on the ground that the defendant No.1 could not approve the same as the suit land was owned by the State of H.P. Moreover, the proposed construction was abutting to National Highway 72 and NOC was not obtained by the plaintiff from HP PWD and CPWD. According to the defendants, construction raised by the plaintiff was unauthorized and illegal. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiff. The issues were framed by the learned trial court on 20.3.2006 and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.6.2009. 5. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 16.6.2009 filed an appeal before the learned first appellate court, who vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2011 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the learned courts below have misconstrued, misinterpreted and misapplied the material on record, more particularly, statements of PW1, PW2, PW3, DW1,DW3 and DW5 and documents Ext. P1, Ext. P2, Ext.P3, Ext. P4, Ext.P5, Ext.P6, Ext.P7, Ext.P8 and the view taken is not possible in view of the material on record and hence is perverse.?” 2. Whether the learned courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff after holding that the plaintiff was never inducted as tenant over the suit land in absence of specific issue having been framed regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, thus causing miscarriage of justice? 3. Whether the learned courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff after holding that the plaintiff was never inducted as tenant over the suit land in absence of specific issue having been framed regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, thus causing miscarriage of justice? 3. Whether the learned District Judge has erred in not discussing the entire evidence placed on record, which, it was required to do on account of it being the Court of first appeal and this has led to an erroneous conclusion? 4. Whether on account of the long standing entries in the Jamabandies/revenue record showing the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest as tenants over the suit land and contradictory and insufficient evidence led by the defendants, the presumption of truth attached to the Jamabandies Ext.P3, Ext.P4, Ext.P5,Ext.P6, Ext.P7, Ext.P8 does not stand rebutted?” 6. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed has vehemently argued that the learned courts below have misconstrued and misappreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. According to him, relationship of tenant and landlord existed between the parties. 7. Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy. Advocate General have supported the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below. 8. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. PW1, Puran Chand, led his evidence by way of an affidavit, Ext. PW1/A. According to him, he, Ashok Kumar, Surinder Kumar, sons of deceased Jagat Ram, Rajinder Kumar, Anil Kumar, Shyam Singh are the tenants on payment of bilmukta salana Rs.12/- on the land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.373min/621, Khasra No.503/161 min, measuring 1 Bigha 8 Biswas, situated at Mohal Paonta Sahib, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.. as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97, Ext.P1. He and other tenants have constructed their residential houses on the suit land since the time of their forefathers and the same are existing on the spot and they are residing there along with their families. He applied before defendant No.1 for sanctioning the map of three shops and necessary fee amounting to Rs.375/- was also deposited. Defendant No.1 after receipt of the amount and the map, issued receipt No.56 of Book NO.71 on 17.2.2003, Ext. P2. He applied before defendant No.1 for sanctioning the map of three shops and necessary fee amounting to Rs.375/- was also deposited. Defendant No.1 after receipt of the amount and the map, issued receipt No.56 of Book NO.71 on 17.2.2003, Ext. P2. Defendant No.1 did not inform the plaintiff about the sanction or rejection of the map. He was in bona fide belief that defendant No.1 had sanctioned the site plan and therefore in the month of March 2004, he constructed three shops in the suit land. The employees of the defendant No.1 entered the suit land and threatened to demolish the shops and structures existing over the suit land on 17.1.2005. This attempt was resisted by them. In his affidavit, Ext.PW1/A, there is reference of copies of jamabandies for the years 1969-70 Ext.P3, 1974-75 Ext.P4, 1979-80 Ext.P5, 1986-87 Ext.P6 and 1991-91 Ext.P7. In crossexamination, he categorically admitted that the suit land belonged to the State of Himachal Pradesh. His grand father, Harnam, was given the land by Ramanuj, Priest, about 35 years ago. He never paid any rent to the State Government. He admitted that he had constructed three shops. He also admitted that he had not got the map sanctioned from M.C. Paonta Sahib. He had also not sought any permission from HP PWD. He denied the suggestion that he laid the foundation in the year 2003. According to him, the construction was started in the year 2004. He denied the issuance of notice. 10. PW2, Mahmood Ahmed alias Sukar Basir also led his evidence by way of an affidavit, Ext.PW2/A. He knew the parties. The suit property was being used by Puran Chand and others. The employees of the Municipal Corporation entered the suit land and threatened to demolish the shops and other structures therefrom on 17.1.2005. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was working as blacksmith. He admitted that the disputed land falls within jurisdiction of Municipal Council. According to him, the shops were constructed in the month of March 2003. 11. PW3, Sadiq, led his evidence by way of an affidavit, Ext.PW3/A. According to him, three shops were constructed near Toll Tax Barrier, Paonta Sahib in month of March 2004. In cross-examination he admitted that he was mason. Shops were constructed between January to April 2003. 12. DW1, Lalit Goyal, deposed that the disputed land belonged to the State of Himachal Pradesh and Municipal Council. In cross-examination he admitted that he was mason. Shops were constructed between January to April 2003. 12. DW1, Lalit Goyal, deposed that the disputed land belonged to the State of Himachal Pradesh and Municipal Council. The plaintiff and his brothers had encroached upon the suit land and had also constructed shops. The foundation was laid on 25.1.2003. The notice was issued to the plaintiff to stop construction. The plaintiff did not stop the construction. He visited the spot and carried out inspection. The plaintiff used to raise construction during night hours. The SDM was also informed about it. The notice was served upon the plaintiff and his brother on 5.2.2003 by the Peon. The plaintiff and his brother were again served upon notice on 23.6.2004. The same was replied by the plaintiff on 26.6.2004. According to him, the plaintiff and his father never paid any rent to the Municipal Council. In cross-examination, he admitted that the map was returned to the plaintiff with objection since the land belonged to Municipal Council. He denied the suggestion that initially Raja Ram father of the plaintiff was paying the rent to Thakur Dwara Dei Ji Sahib and thereafter to the Municipal Council. 13. DW2, Jai Parkash, DW3 Daljeet Singh and DW4 Alijaan testified about serving of the notice upon the plaintiff. 14. DW5 Raunaki Ram Sharma, deposed that resolution No. 6 was passed vide Ext. DW5/A concerning unauthorized construction. 15. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the plaintiff has relied on jamabandies for the years 1969-70 Ext.P3, 1974-75 Ext.P4, 1979-80 Ext.P5, 1986-87 Ext.P6, 1991-92 Ext.P7 and 1996-97 Ext.P8. According to the entries therein, Raja Ram was recorded in possession of the land and after his death, name of the plaintiff has been mentioned. However, the land has been shown to be owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff has not led any tangible evidence to establish on record who has ordered the induction of his predecessor-in-interest as tenant. There is no order of the competent authority placed on record by the plaintiff pursuant to which these entries have been made. According to plaint, the plaintiff came in possession of the suit land in year 1964-65 as tenant. There is no order of the competent authority placed on record by the plaintiff pursuant to which these entries have been made. According to plaint, the plaintiff came in possession of the suit land in year 1964-65 as tenant. In the replication, the case set up by the plaintiff is that Ramanuj, who was the Mohatmim of Mandir Dei Ji Sahiba, inducted the plaintiff as tenant over the suit land in the year 1969 against rent of Rs.12/- per annum. The plaintiff in cross-examination has categorically admitted that the State of Himachal Pradesh was the owner of the suit land. He also admitted that he had not paid any rent to the State of Himachal Pradesh. He also admitted that he had not got the map sanctioned before constructing three shops. The statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 18.5.2007. In cross-examination, he deposed that his grand father was inducted as tenant about 35 years back, meaning thereby, his predecessor-in-interest was inducted as tenant in the year 1972. However, in the plaint, the plaintiff averred that he came in possession of the suit land in year 1964-65 and in the replication, it was averred that Ramanju, who was the Mohatmim of Mandir Dei Ji Sahiba, inducted the plaintiff as tenant over the suit land in the year 1969. Thus, there are material contradictions with regard to the induction of the plaintiff as tenant over the suit land. 16. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, has also argued that the plaintiff had submitted the map before defendant No.1 qua construction and he was not informed by defendant No.1 about any rejection of his map. In other words, it was the case of the deemed sanction. It has come in the statement of DW1 Lalit Goyal that the map was returned to the plaintiff with objection since the land was belonged to the Municipal Council on the same day. The plaintiff had also not served any notice upon defendant No.1 before commencement of the construction as per provisions of H.P. Municipal Council Act. The plaintiff also admitted that he had not paid any rent to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The construction was commenced in month of January 2003. The notices were issued to him, but the plaintiff did not stop the construction. It has also come in the statement of DW5 Raunaki Ram Sharma, that resolution No. 6 was passed vide Ext. The plaintiff also admitted that he had not paid any rent to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The construction was commenced in month of January 2003. The notices were issued to him, but the plaintiff did not stop the construction. It has also come in the statement of DW5 Raunaki Ram Sharma, that resolution No. 6 was passed vide Ext. DW5/A concerning unauthorized construction. Even then, the plaintiff did not stop the construction of the shop and he used to raise construction during night hours. The plaintiff did not know that any document was prepared at the time when the suit land was given to his grand father by Ramanuj Priest. The tenancy is a bilateral act. Payment of rent in any form is prerequisite condition for creation of the tenancy. It has also come on record that the land was not cultivated and it was abadi land. There is also variance in the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3 as to when the construction was commenced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not raise construction over the suit land which was owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The revenue entries showing the plaintiff in possession of the suit land are stray entries. The site plan submitted by the plaintiff was never approved by defendant No.1. Learned courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. All the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. In view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the regular second appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.