- (1.) HEARD Shri V. B. S. Negi, counsel for the appellants and Shri I. S. Mehra, counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment and de cree dated 1-11-2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2004 passed by Dis trict Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) for a decree for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed. Against the said decree the de fendants preferred the appeal. The ap peal was dismissed by the appellate court. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed. The second appeal has been ad mitted on the following substantial ques tion of law : "1. Whether the courts below have erred in law in treating the license as lease, on the basis of long permis sion to occupy the premises by the plaintiff?"
(3.) ACCORDING to the plaint aver ments, the plaintiffs are the tenant of the shop and house, boundary of which are given below, on a sum of Rs. 20/-towards rent. Boundary of shop : Towards the North : After field, house of Sher Bahadur Towards the South : After Road, office of Khurpia Farm Towards the East : House of Shiv Dayal Towards the West : Road Boundary of House: Towards the North : Road Towards the South : House of Narendra Verma after garden Towards the East : House of Gopal Kishna Towards the West : Gandhi House of Baliram Road It has been stated that a sum of Rs. 70/- each towards electricity charges for the shop and for the house were be ing realized by the Khurpia Agriculture Farm by Sri Jeet Singh (since deceased ). Sri Jeet Singh has paid total rent alongwith the electricity charges but the defendants have given the receipt for electricity charges only. The plaintiffs sent a notice on 21-8-1998 to the Khurpia Agriculture Farm, Kichha through its Farm Manager for correction in receipts. But, the electricity connec tions of the shop and the house were disconnected. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were threatened that: they will be dispos sessed by the defendants forcibly. The plaintiffs have prayed for a decree for declaration as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to dispossess the plaintiffs except in ac cordance with law.;