ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR Vs. COL.SURINDER SINGH GROVER (RETD.)
LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-40
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 01,1997

ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR Appellant
VERSUS
COL.SURINDER SINGH GROVER (RETD.) Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M/S,JEETHAMBI NEMI CHAND V. S. B. SUKRAJ [REFERRED TO]
MOHAR SINGH VS. DEVI CHARAN [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA SARDARMAL LALWANI VS. RADHAVALLABH SALIGRAM [REFERRED TO]
B P PATHAK VS. RIYAZUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
SARDARILAL VS. NARAYANLAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.)Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Mrs Aruna Kapoor, Additional District Judge (i), Shimla in civil appeal No I2S/i3of 1992 dated 18 -9 -1993. By means of impugued judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has upheld the decree for possession as well as for recovery of Rs 2,200 besides mesne profits ordered under the decree of the trial Court dated 12 -12 -1991.
(2.)Brief facts giving rise to this case are that a suit for possession as well as for recovery of money by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the defendant. This suit was based on title. Plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of the property comprised in Khasra No. 6/1, measuring 2 biswas, together with a structure measuring 45x 10 standing on this land. Case of the plaintiff further was that he had purchased the said two biswas of land from its previous owner Smt Begmu by means of a registered sale deed Ex P -l and the property was situated in Mauza Jungle Mashobra, Tehsil and District Shimla. This sale deed Ex P -l was on 29 -11 1985 registered in the office of Sub -Registrar, Shimla. Defendant was a tenant in respect of the premises in question under its previous owner Smt Begmu on a monthly rental of Rs 100 and the plaintiff claimed himself to be entitled to the rents/profits etc. of the property in question with effect from 1 -12 -1985 in his own right being its absolute owner, intimation of the purchase by the plaintiff was given by both Begmu as well as the plaintiff to the defendant who had further been advised by Smt. Begmu to pay the rent to the plaintiff Notice was also stated to have been served upon the defendant claiming rent etc. as well as determining his tenancy with the close of month of September, 1987. In addition to this, a claim of Rs 2,320 was made i e. rent for 16 months commencing from 1 -12 -1985, besides use and occupation charges for six months from 1 -4 1987 and damages/mesne profits for illegal and unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property for four days at rate of Rs. 30 per day from M0 -I987 to 4 -10 -1987,
(3.)This suit was contested and resisted by the defendant who raised preliminary submissions regarding non existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, property not having been identified, suit being bad for non -joinder of necessary parties estoppel against the plaintiff, non -maintainability of suit in the present form and suit not being properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction etc, Tenancy was also pleaded not to be terminated according to law and the sale in favour of the plaintiff being void and illegal On merits while decying the sale in question, it was pleaded that the defendant was induced as a tenant/lessee vide agreement dated 1 -10 1983 of land measuring 90X 45 on a part of which an open Dhara was in existence ; tenancy was pleaded in favour of the defendant as well as another person, Rs ?0.000 were claimed to have been spent by the lessee having been allowed to make additions and alterations by Smt. Begmu where defendant as well as other persons had established factory and workshop for manufacture of steel items. Rate of rent was admitted as Rs. 100 p.m. All other averments were also controverted. Liability to pay future masne profit and damages after September, 1987 was disputed and the claim made by the plaintiff was also stated to be incorrect. Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant and all the averments made by the defendant which were contrary to the facts stated in the plaint were disputed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.