SITA DEVI Vs. BIDHI SINGH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-12-5
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on December 18,1997

SITA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
Bidhi Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SURINDER SARUP, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents has been decreed for possession by way of ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 4,800/- as arrears of rent. The judgment and decree of the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Palampur is dated 16.11.1997. The appeal taken against that decision by the defendants-respondents has been dismissed by the District Judge vide this judgment and decree dated 3.11.1992.
(2.)THE suit was filed on the pleadings that the plaintiffs/respondents are the owners of the shop comprising of two rooms and a verandah in the first floor and in the second floor marked as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint situated in Khata No. 125 min, Khatauni No. 234 min, Khasra No. 872 at Bhawarna Bazar, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra. It was pleaded that the premises in dispute were given on rent to the tenants/appellants at the rate of Rs. 35/- per mensem which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 60/- P.M. It was further pleaded that the tenant-appellant failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 7.10.1978 to 6.5.1985 and as such is liable to pay the arrears which come to Rs. 4,800/-. They wanted to eject the tenant and served a notice on him under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, dated 30.5.1985, which was duly received and replied to.
In the written statement, the tenant-appellant took up the plea that there is no valid power of attorney in favour of the plaintiffs and that the defendants/tenants never refused to pay the rent. It was averred that the plaintiffs entered into a compromise dated 10.10.1978 wherein the tenancy was to remain for all times to come but the rent could be enhanced or revised after the expiry of five years.

(3.)ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :
"1. Whether tenancy of defendant has been terminated through a valid notice, as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the parties entered into an agreement on 10.10.1978, if so what are the terms and its effect ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the arrears of rent as claimed ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is legally defective, as alleged ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is mala fide as alleged, if so its effect ? OPD. 6. Relief."



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