JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 06.2.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.20 of 2009, whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Una, in Civil Suit No.99/2003 has been reversed, with a prayer to set aside the same and to restore the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are: that the Appellant/respondent (hereinafter to be called as "the appellant") maintained a suit for posession by way of eviction and recovery of Rs.14,000/- on the contention that he is the owner of the premises in the lis and the same was let out by him to the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter to be called as "the respondent") on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- in the month of June,1995. As per the plaintiff/respondent, the rent has not been paid from June, 2001 to April, 2003 and, thus, the appellant is in arrears of rent. Further, that the tenancy of the respondent was terminated by a notice. 3. The defendant contested the suit and averred that the land underneath the shop was given on lease on a monthly lease money of Rs.10/- and the same was enhanced to Rs.50/-. Further, that after getting land on lease, the respondent raised super structure with his own funds and at that time, it was agreed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/respondent that lease is of permanent nature and so long the defendant pays the lease money, he would not be evicted. As per the defendant, the allegation of the plaintiff, that the shop in question was rented out by the appellant on 01.6.1995, altogether is wrong and false. It has been pleaded that the lease money has been paid to the plaintiff till April, 2003. 4. The learned Trial Court, on completion of the pleadings and after recording the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff, though owner of the land, has failed to prove that the premises was let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- w.e.f. 01.6.1995 and the termination of the tenancy and the recovery of the arrears has been held to be not tenable. 5. 5. The learned District Judge, while setting aside the reasoned and balanced judgment of the learned Trial Court, decreed the suit. The learned District Judge has held that the rent is Rs.100/- per month and the appellant is in arrears of rent since 01.1.2001 and while passing the decree of possession by eviction, a decree for recovery of Rs.9,600/- was also passed. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues : "1. Whether the shop doneted by letters ABCD shown red in the site plan are owned by the plaintiff as alleged? ... ... OPP 2. Whether the defendant took aforesaid shops on rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the plaintiff since 1.6.1995, as alleged? ... ... OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? ... ... OPD 4. Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been validly terminated by the plaintiff vide notice dated 8.5.2003? ... ... OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession, as claimed? ... ... OPP 6. Whether the site underneath the shops was taken on lease of Rs. 10/- per month, which stands enhanced now to Rs.50/- per month, as alleged. If so, its effect? ... ... OPD 7. Whether there was an oral agreement between the parties that defendant shall not be ejected from the site underneath the shops so long as he pays rent as alleged, If so, its effect? ... ... OPD 8. Relief." 7. The learned Trial Court decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and Issues No.2 to 5 against the plaintiff and Issues No.6 and 7 against the defendants and dismissed the suit. 8. The defendants maintained the appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside. Hence, the present regular second appeal, which was admitted on 20.4.2010, on the following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?" 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 10. Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?" 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/respondent has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is without appreciating the facts, which have come on record to its true perspective and the same is required to be set aside. He has further argued that it was incumbent upon the learned Lower Appellate Court to give findings on each and every aspect, but the learned Appellate Court has failed to do so. 11. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is just and reasoned and requires no intereference. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has given its findings on each and every aspect in detail and no interference is required to be taken at this moment. 12. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that there is substantial question of law involved, which needs to be adjudicated upon. He has further argued that the appeal be allowed. 13. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record of the case, in detail. 14. PW-1 Piara Singh had stated that he had been the owner of the shop in dispute and he had rented out the shop to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.500/- w.e.f. 01.06.1995 and that the appellant/defendant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.2001. He has further stated that his son was without any job and he wanted to settle him and on this ground he had sought eviction of the defendant. However, the defendant despite receipt of notice, did not vacate the premises nor had paid any rent. The evidence of this PW had been endorsed and supported by PW2 Bakhshish Singh and PW3 Darshan Singh. 15. PW-4 had prepared the site plan of the premises, Ext.PW4/A and against the said evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant, including himself, had examined seven DWs. DW1 Ramesh Chand, MHC had tendered in evidence report, Ext. The evidence of this PW had been endorsed and supported by PW2 Bakhshish Singh and PW3 Darshan Singh. 15. PW-4 had prepared the site plan of the premises, Ext.PW4/A and against the said evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant, including himself, had examined seven DWs. DW1 Ramesh Chand, MHC had tendered in evidence report, Ext. DX, of Daily Diary of Police Post, Haroli on 24.01.1995. It has been submitted that the premises in dispute had been partially affected by fire on the night intervening 23.01.1995 and 24.01.1995. DW2 Sarvan Singh was an official of HPSEB. During his examination, he has stated that premises in dispute stood provided power connection on and w.e.f. 20.07.1993. DW3, Ramesh Kumar was an official of Weights and Measures Department. DW3 had stated that the defendant had been issued certificate/rectipt Ext. DW3/A on 17.05.1985 and the Weights of the defendant had been certified by the then Inspector, Weights and Measures Department. DW4 Pawan Kumar and DW7 Dharam Pal had stated that the defendant had been doing business of food article and the local health authorities had issued licence Ext.DW4/A and DW7/A in favour for the defendant in the year 1988-89. DW5 Bhajan Singh had stated that defendant had construted the premises in dispute sometimes in the year 1966-67 and the defendant had been doing business. The defendant had not taken the premises in question on rent from the plaintiff. DW6 Charna (appellant herein) had controverted the evidence of the plaintiff. 16. When the notice was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff, he has mentioned that the shop, in question, was given to him on rent in the year 1995 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, but this fact found to be not correct as the defendant was running the shop as per the witness of the plaintiff itself, i.e. PW4 from the year 1985. The specific stand of the defendant that he had constructed the shop consisting two rooms on the leased land belonging to the plaintiff is not specifically controverted in the replication. At the same point of time, the Government Departments have given Licence Ext.DW7/A and Ext. DW7/B for sale of food, Tea & Sweets in the premises at Pubowal in the year 1988-89. The Weights and Measures Department has certified the weights and measures of the defendant in the year,1985 vide Ext.DW3/A. 17. At the same point of time, the Government Departments have given Licence Ext.DW7/A and Ext. DW7/B for sale of food, Tea & Sweets in the premises at Pubowal in the year 1988-89. The Weights and Measures Department has certified the weights and measures of the defendant in the year,1985 vide Ext.DW3/A. 17. Now, coming to the 'Rapt' with regard to the fire. The Rapat mark 'DX' shows that on 23.01.1995, there was fire in the shop, but after analysing mark DX, it is found that the fire destroyed (Khahadposh) big grass roofed verandah of the shop where the Benches were kept and on one side, was a 'Bhatti' and the loss was about to Rs.3,000/- only. It seems that the plaintiff has taken the cause from this time onward, but the shop having two rooms remained intact as per the perusal of mark DX. This all shows that had the shop been given to the defendant on rent prior to the year 1985, the plaintiff would have again asked the defendant for the rent from the year 1985, if not paid, but he has contested his case from the year 1995, but the facts on record clearly shows that the shop having two rooms was with the defendant prior to the year 1995. As per the defendant, he has constructed the shop and there is no clear denial by the plaintiff in the replication to this effect. The plaintiff has not stated that when the shop was constructed; by whom shop was construcred and who was keeping the shop in question before the year 1995. In these circumstances, the version of the plaintiff is not reliable at all and the version of the defendant is reliable. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court are, thus, without any basis. 18. This Court finds that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are perverse and so, the findings as recorded by the learned Appellate Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court are perverse. So, the substantial question of law, as framed, is answered accordingly. 19. In these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court are perverse. So, the substantial question of law, as framed, is answered accordingly. 19. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal is required to be allowed, which is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned Trial Court is affirmed. Pending applications if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 06.2.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.20 of 2009, whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Una, in Civil Suit No.99/2003 has been reversed, with a prayer to set aside the same and to restore the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are: that the Appellant/respondent (hereinafter to be called as "the appellant") maintained a suit for posession by way of eviction and recovery of Rs.14,000/- on the contention that he is the owner of the premises in the lis and the same was let out by him to the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter to be called as "the respondent") on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- in the month of June,1995. As per the plaintiff/respondent, the rent has not been paid from June, 2001 to April, 2003 and, thus, the appellant is in arrears of rent. Further, that the tenancy of the respondent was terminated by a notice. 3. The defendant contested the suit and averred that the land underneath the shop was given on lease on a monthly lease money of Rs.10/- and the same was enhanced to Rs.50/-. Further, that after getting land on lease, the respondent raised super structure with his own funds and at that time, it was agreed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/respondent that lease is of permanent nature and so long the defendant pays the lease money, he would not be evicted. As per the defendant, the allegation of the plaintiff, that the shop in question was rented out by the appellant on 01.6.1995, altogether is wrong and false. As per the defendant, the allegation of the plaintiff, that the shop in question was rented out by the appellant on 01.6.1995, altogether is wrong and false. It has been pleaded that the lease money has been paid to the plaintiff till April, 2003. 4. The learned Trial Court, on completion of the pleadings and after recording the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff, though owner of the land, has failed to prove that the premises was let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- w.e.f. 01.6.1995 and the termination of the tenancy and the recovery of the arrears has been held to be not tenable. 5. The learned District Judge, while setting aside the reasoned and balanced judgment of the learned Trial Court, decreed the suit. The learned District Judge has held that the rent is Rs.100/- per month and the appellant is in arrears of rent since 01.1.2001 and while passing the decree of possession by eviction, a decree for recovery of Rs.9,600/- was also passed. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues : "1. Whether the shop doneted by letters ABCD shown red in the site plan are owned by the plaintiff as alleged? ... ... OPP 2. Whether the defendant took aforesaid shops on rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the plaintiff since 1.6.1995, as alleged? ... ... OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? ... ... OPD 4. Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been validly terminated by the plaintiff vide notice dated 8.5.2003? ... ... OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession, as claimed? ... ... OPP 6. Whether the site underneath the shops was taken on lease of Rs. 10/- per month, which stands enhanced now to Rs.50/- per month, as alleged. If so, its effect? ... ... OPD 7. Whether there was an oral agreement between the parties that defendant shall not be ejected from the site underneath the shops so long as he pays rent as alleged, If so, its effect? ... ... OPD 8. Relief." 7. The learned Trial Court decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and Issues No.2 to 5 against the plaintiff and Issues No.6 and 7 against the defendants and dismissed the suit. 8. ... ... OPD 8. Relief." 7. The learned Trial Court decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and Issues No.2 to 5 against the plaintiff and Issues No.6 and 7 against the defendants and dismissed the suit. 8. The defendants maintained the appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside. Hence, the present regular second appeal, which was admitted on 20.4.2010, on the following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?" 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/respondent has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is without appreciating the facts, which have come on record to its true perspective and the same is required to be set aside. He has further argued that it was incumbent upon the learned Lower Appellate Court to give findings on each and every aspect, but the learned Appellate Court has failed to do so. 11. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is just and reasoned and requires no intereference. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has given its findings on each and every aspect in detail and no interference is required to be taken at this moment. 12. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that there is substantial question of law involved, which needs to be adjudicated upon. He has further argued that the appeal be allowed. 13. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record of the case, in detail. 14. PW-1 Piara Singh had stated that he had been the owner of the shop in dispute and he had rented out the shop to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.500/- w.e.f. 01.06.1995 and that the appellant/defendant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.2001. 14. PW-1 Piara Singh had stated that he had been the owner of the shop in dispute and he had rented out the shop to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.500/- w.e.f. 01.06.1995 and that the appellant/defendant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.2001. He has further stated that his son was without any job and he wanted to settle him and on this ground he had sought eviction of the defendant. However, the defendant despite receipt of notice, did not vacate the premises nor had paid any rent. The evidence of this PW had been endorsed and supported by PW2 Bakhshish Singh and PW3 Darshan Singh. 15. PW-4 had prepared the site plan of the premises, Ext.PW4/A and against the said evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant, including himself, had examined seven DWs. DW1 Ramesh Chand, MHC had tendered in evidence report, Ext. DX, of Daily Diary of Police Post, Haroli on 24.01.1995. It has been submitted that the premises in dispute had been partially affected by fire on the night intervening 23.01.1995 and 24.01.1995. DW2 Sarvan Singh was an official of HPSEB. During his examination, he has stated that premises in dispute stood provided power connection on and w.e.f. 20.07.1993. DW3, Ramesh Kumar was an official of Weights and Measures Department. DW3 had stated that the defendant had been issued certificate/rectipt Ext. DW3/A on 17.05.1985 and the Weights of the defendant had been certified by the then Inspector, Weights and Measures Department. DW4 Pawan Kumar and DW7 Dharam Pal had stated that the defendant had been doing business of food article and the local health authorities had issued licence Ext.DW4/A and DW7/A in favour for the defendant in the year 1988-89. DW5 Bhajan Singh had stated that defendant had construted the premises in dispute sometimes in the year 1966-67 and the defendant had been doing business. The defendant had not taken the premises in question on rent from the plaintiff. DW6 Charna (appellant herein) had controverted the evidence of the plaintiff. 16. When the notice was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff, he has mentioned that the shop, in question, was given to him on rent in the year 1995 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, but this fact found to be not correct as the defendant was running the shop as per the witness of the plaintiff itself, i.e. PW4 from the year 1985. The specific stand of the defendant that he had constructed the shop consisting two rooms on the leased land belonging to the plaintiff is not specifically controverted in the replication. At the same point of time, the Government Departments have given Licence Ext.DW7/A and Ext. DW7/B for sale of food, Tea & Sweets in the premises at Pubowal in the year 1988-89. The Weights and Measures Department has certified the weights and measures of the defendant in the year,1985 vide Ext.DW3/A. 17. Now, coming to the 'Rapt' with regard to the fire. The Rapat mark 'DX' shows that on 23.01.1995, there was fire in the shop, but after analysing mark DX, it is found that the fire destroyed (Khahadposh) big grass roofed verandah of the shop where the Benches were kept and on one side, was a 'Bhatti' and the loss was about to Rs.3,000/- only. It seems that the plaintiff has taken the cause from this time onward, but the shop having two rooms remained intact as per the perusal of mark DX. This all shows that had the shop been given to the defendant on rent prior to the year 1985, the plaintiff would have again asked the defendant for the rent from the year 1985, if not paid, but he has contested his case from the year 1995, but the facts on record clearly shows that the shop having two rooms was with the defendant prior to the year 1995. As per the defendant, he has constructed the shop and there is no clear denial by the plaintiff in the replication to this effect. The plaintiff has not stated that when the shop was constructed; by whom shop was construcred and who was keeping the shop in question before the year 1995. In these circumstances, the version of the plaintiff is not reliable at all and the version of the defendant is reliable. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court are, thus, without any basis. 18. This Court finds that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are perverse and so, the findings as recorded by the learned Appellate Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court are perverse. So, the substantial question of law, as framed, is answered accordingly. 19. In these circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court are perverse. So, the substantial question of law, as framed, is answered accordingly. 19. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal is required to be allowed, which is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned Trial Court is affirmed. Pending applications if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.