JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant/allottee claiming the hereinafter extracted reliefs:- “(a) defendant be directed to handover possession of MIG-31, Sector-1, Parwanoo to the plaintiff on account of violations of the terms and regulations; (b) in case the Hon'ble Court comes to conclusion that defendant cannot be directed to handover the possession of the house thereupon to the plaintiff, in that eventuality the defendant be restrained from making user of House MIG- 31, Sector-1, Parwanoo for any other purpose other than residential and further from doing any such act or deed, which may cause any type of loss or injury to the rights, title, aims, objects and purposes etc. etc. of the plaintiff-Board” The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant instituted an appeal therefrom before the learned District Judge, Solan, who reversed the decree of the learned trial Court. Standing aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Judge, Solan, the plaintiff/appellant herein has instituted before this Court the instant Regular Second Appeal whereby it assails the findings recorded therein. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the defendant/respondent herein had purchased a house from the appellant/plaintiff-Board. The plaintiff/appellant herein had allotted the House No.MIG-31, Sector-1, Parwanoo on hire purchase basis vide allotment letter of 5.7.1976 to the defendant/respondent herein. Pursuant to the said allotment, he took over the possession of the house on 10.12.1976 and thereafter the defendant became its absolute owner on payment of the full consideration amount through conveyance deed of 19.9.1988 duly registered with Sub Registrar, Kasauli. The defendant was alleged to have been allotted the house with the specific conditions that residential house will be raised and the same will be used only for residential purpose and he cannot use the house for any other purpose. The defendant was alleged to be using the plot and structures raised thereupon for the purpose of Guest House known as Gabriel India Limited. Having coming to know this fact the plaintiff issued a notice of 5.10.1996 to the defendant to show cause why the property be not resumed as he has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment. On his failure to handover possession of the house after issuance of a notice a suit for mandatory injunction as also for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed. 3. On his failure to handover possession of the house after issuance of a notice a suit for mandatory injunction as also for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. The defendant denied the allegations as alleged against him in the plaint. He denied his having violated any terms and conditions of the allotment and claimed that the house is being used for residential purposes only and the plaintiff has no right to forfeit the properties in question and the defendant claimed to be the absolute owner in possession and having every right, title or interest. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- (1) Whether the defendant has been using house MIG-31, Sector-1, Parwanoo for commercial purpose in violation of terms and conditions of Housing Board, as alleged? OPP (2) Whether the defendant is required to handover possession of house in question to the plaintiff, as alleged? Opp. Parties (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed? Opp. Parties (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD (7) Whether suit is not valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD (8) Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the suit due to his acts and conduct? OPD (9) Relief. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/respondent before the learned first Appellate Court, the learned first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. 6. Now the plaintiff/appellant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 12.10.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. When the appeal came up for admission on 12.10.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the judgment/decree dated 8.11.2006 passed by first appellate court, reversing the judgment/decree dated 28.4.2006 passed by the trial court is perverse, keeping in view the fact that the findings of fact are erroneous as relevant material having been left out and irrelevant material have been taken into consideration and thus findings are contrary to pleadings, admission made by respondent/defendant and evidence on record, which as such has led to miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether the first appellate court below has misconstrued itself by coming to the conclusion that the hiring a property by the Company for stay of its guest will not amount to a commercial activities comparing it to the case of renting the house to a tenant and thus by giving a wrong interpretation of a rental accommodation, residential house and a guest house and their different aspects, that to in a residential colony? 3. Whether the judgment is right which allow the allottees to use residential plots for commercial use of plots which are only meant for residential purposes and would further complicate the issues and lead to multiplicity of litigation between different allottees one who are themselves using the plots for their residential purposes and between those who have using the residential plots for commercial purposes in residential areas, in contrary to the rules and regulations and conditions, at the cost of people, who have no residential houses? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 7. Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 7. The learned first appellate Court had concluded on an analysis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in purported substantiation of the averments cast in the plaint, of the defendant contrary to the terms of the contract of allotment whereunder he stood enjoined to raise on the plot allotted to him by the plaintiff only a residential house, his while proceeding to raise construction thereon his using it as a guest house for lodging guests therein on payment basis when hence obviously begets infraction of the provisions of condition No.14(i) of the H.P. Housing Board Allotment, Management and Sale of Houses/Plot Regulations, 1973, which stand extracted hereinafter, evidence whereof stood embodied in the testimonies of the two witnesses, of hence the plaintiff abysmally failing to substantiate its apposite averments. Condition No. 14(i): “No allottee shall use the house/plot for the purpose other than that for which it is allotted.” The learned first Appellate Court on a studied perusal of their respective testimonies, though underscoring therein of the allottee/defendant herein using the building raised on the plot allotted to him by the plaintiff/appellant herein, his yet converting it into a guest house for facilitating the lodging of inmates/guests therein on payment basis, yet the aforesaid bald testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses in purported proof of the apposite averments cast in the plaint, as aptly concluded by the learned first Appellate Court are not sufficient to conclude therefrom of hence any overt infraction by the defendant/respondent of the contract of allotment of the plot to him by the plaintiff spurring from his converting the building raised by him on the plot allotted to him for a purpose other than for which the allotment was made in his favour, standing cogently substantiated, especially when the best evidence constituted by adduction by the plaintiff in the apposite register maintained at the purported guest house carrying entries of guest purportedly staying therein besides of the apposite record from the authority concerned in display of the purported guest house standing registered with the appropriate authority apart therefrom none of the inmates, who resided or were residing in the guest house run by the defendant in the building raised on the plot allotted to him stood/remained un-adduced/un-examined, it would be grossly inappropriate to conclude only on the anvil of the bald testimonies of the official witnesses of the plaintiff- board, of hence the plaintiff/appellant succeeding to substantiate the averments/allegations constituted in the plaint qua the defendant/allottee. In sequel, the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court against the plaintiff/defendant do not merit any interference. 8. In sequel, the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court against the plaintiff/defendant do not merit any interference. 8. Be that as it may, even the invocation of the afore extracted provisions of the apposite regulations was both inappropriate besides in-sagacious inasmuch as with un-controvertedly, the defendant/allottee raising a building/structure upon the land allotted to him user whereof by him even if assumingly is for lodging guests therein on payment basis, than for carrying out any distinct mercantile activity therefrom verging upon its standing used not for residential purpose would not render the activity, if any, of the allottee/defendant permitting lodgers to reside therein on payment basis being construable of the defendant/allottee changing the complexion of the allotment of the plot to him by the plaintiff from its being permitted to be used by his raising a residential construction thereupon especially when the staying of inmates therein on payment basis is amenable to its standing used for residential purposes. Consequently, when guests, if any, who purportedly occupy the building raised on the plot allotted to the defendant obviously hold it for no purpose other than of theirs residing therein, for reiteration hence such user, if any, is to be construable of the defendant/allottee even when he permits any guest to remain housed therein on payment basis of his continuing to use the premises for residential purposes. Even otherwise, when the plaintiff/appellant has received the entire sale consideration from the allottee/defendant which factum when coagulated with the aforesaid inference of user, if any, by the defendant/allottee of the building raised on the plot allotted to him, as a guest house for permitting guests to stay therein as inmates on payment basis not constituting any gross alteration of the nature of its allotment by the plaintiff to the defendant/allottee, any fetter for precluding or inhibiting or interdicting the allottee to rear any income from a building raised on the plot allotted to him by his using it in the manner aforesaid, would operate as a manifestly vile restriction standing untenably foisted on his rights as an allottee besides while detracting from his right as an absolute owner thereof moreso when absolute title qua it stands vested upon him under a registered deed of conveyance executed by the plaintiff in his favour, any detraction whereof would beget infraction of the apposite provisions of the Transfer of Property Act contemplating of on absolute title qua the property recorded in the apposite deed of conveyance executed by the plaintiff in favour of the allottee standing hence bestowed upon the allotee it being free from any arbitrary imposition of trammels/restrictions on his right as absolute owner thereto. Since, apparently, it appears that the apposite regulation as stand invoked by the plaintiff when is inconsistent with besides is militative of bestowment of absolute title as owner qua the plot upon him under a registered deed of conveyance executed in his favour by the plaintiff whereon he has raised a building and even if assumingly he houses therein inmates on payments basis, any interdiction qua his housing them therein on payment basis for reasons aforesaid when is obviously in dire derogation of his title as owner besides erodes his absolute ownership qua it, as a corollary, permitting the apt provisions standing invoked by the plaintiff or permitting theirs holding play would both belittle the effect of besides render nugatory the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act barring the vendor as the plaintiff is to not restrict or fetter the vestment of absolute title in the vendee under a registered deed of conveyance executed by it in favour of the vendee inasmuch as by its trammeling his liberty to enjoy in the manner as he chooses. 9. 9. Be that as it may, a juristic entity as the plaintiff is when proceeds to transfer title in a plot or a built up construction to an allottte or a vendee under a registered deed of conveyance, executed by it in the latter's favour, it holds a pedestal at par with or equivalent to a non juristic vendor. Necessarily then when a non juristic vendor is barred to impose fetters on the absolute transfer of title qua the property alienated by him to his vendee under a registered deed of conveyance likewise a juristic entity as the plaintiff is, cannot when it holds parity with a non juristic vendor unlike the latter restrict or fetter the vestment of absolute title in any plot/built up structure conveyed by it to its vendee/allottee under an alike registered deed of conveyance by invoking the apposite regulations which per se hence appear to impose an unreasonable discriminatory restriction qua allottees/vendees under a juristic entity as the plaintiff is, especially when the latter for the reasons aforesaid is at par with any other vendor or a non juristic vendor who holds no leverage under law to restrict the enjoyment of property by an absolute owner by imposing fetters on its user. However, even if the aforesaid findings stand recorded of the vendor/plaintiff standing inter dicted to invoke the apposite regulations against the defendant/allottee, the invocation of the aforesaid apposite provisions by the plaintiff would remain alive where there is gross change or any drastic alteration in the complexion of the nature of the allotment made of the plot/structure by it in favour of the allottee, constituted by the allottee carrying out a mercantile activity unrelated to besides not cognate to the nature of the allotment made to him inasmuch as his holding a mercantile activity therein having no close affinity or affiliation with its user as a residential house either for personal use or on payment basis. 9. 9. Predominantly, when the defendant/allottee has raised a building on the plot allotted to him by the plaintiff after obtaining the necessary permission from the authority concerned, permission whereof gives him a right to carry out alterations upon the plot, besides with permission standing granted to the defendant/allottee for raising a residential house necessarily hence in face thereof there appears to be no gross alteration or any manifest dire change in the complexion of the nature of the allotment of the plot as allotted to the defendant, even if, in consonance thereto he raises a residential building thereon besides he uses a part thereof even if assumingly not for personal use but for permitting inmates to stay therein on payment basis. 10. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendant/ respondent and against the plaintiff/appellant. 11. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first Appellate Court is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.