Decided on April 15,1999

OM PARKASH Appellant


ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Rajouri in File No. 2/Appeal dated 28.2.1998, filed by Om Parkash (hereinafter referred to as defendant). This appeal before the appellate Court was filed against the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge, Rajouri to File No. 47/Civil dated 27.3.1995 in suit filed by Surinder Kumar and two others (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs.) Suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court and consequently a decree for ejectment was passed since the defendant had failed to pay the rent from July, 1992 along with costs of the suit. In appeal this decree of the trial Court was upheld by the appellate Court, hence this appeal at the instance of defendant.
(2.) SINCE plaintiffs were on caveat, therefore after calling for the records the parties have been heard at length at admission stage. With a view to properly understand and appreciate the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties brief facts need to be noticed, which are to the following effect :- Plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners of a single storeyed shop situate near Bus Stand, Rajouri, as detailed in the heading of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as suit premises). This suit premises according to them was let out to defendant firstly in the year 1984 when it was jointly owned by the owners vide Exp B at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Another rent note came to be executed in the year 1987 by the defendant in favour of Late Shri Dev Raj, father of the plaintiffs through his son and attorney Surinder Kumar and rent was agreed to Rs. 175/- per month vide Exp A. According to plaintiff since defendant had gone into arrears of rent and having committed defaults within the meaning of provisions of Rent Act of the State, as such he was liable to be evicted. Notice was also pleaded to have been sent to the defendant which was received by him on 5.1.1993.
(3.) THIS suit was resisted by the defendant, who filed evasive written statement to the plaint but raised additional plea to the effect that though the plaintiffs were approached for letting out a shop on rent and for that purpose rent deed was executed, but he could not be put in possession as the premises were with a third person. Consequently Surinder Kumar, plaintiff No. 1 declared the rent deed to be non-est and accordingly to defendant he was assured that the same would not be acted upon. Defendant further claimed that he started a tea stall adjacent to the said shop near the road. Later he purchased the back portion of the shop from Karan Vir and others, and has developed a shop in which the land on which the old khokha was built was also merged. In this background he urged that the premises were not taken on rent by him from the plaintiffs, who in fact were not in a position to put him in possession thereof because of premises being occupied by someone else. It may be noted here that when a reference is made to the statement of facts detailed in the plaint, those have not been either specifically admitted or denied as required under the law of pleadings.;

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