- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. Heard Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, counsel for the appellant and Sri Sharad Sharma, counsel for the respondents. As both the second appeals have been filed against a common order, therefore, the same are decided together. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE :
(2.) BY the present second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20. 04. 2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge/iiird Fast Tack Court, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 36 and 37 of 1998 Dr. Ramesh Singh Vs. Manager Meharchand Sood Dharamshala and an other. Briefly stated, so far as Second Ap peal No. 61 of 2007 is concerned, a suit was filed by the plaintiff- respondent being Civil Suit No. 123 of 1981 Ramesh Chandra Vs. Manager Meharchand Sood Dharamshala and another praying for per manent injunction restraining the defend ant from interfering in his possession. So far as Second Appeal No. 60 of 2007 is concerned, another suit was filed by the plaintiff- respondent being Suit No. 188 of 1987 claiming the eviction of the defendant as well as damages for use and occupation of the premises in dispute. Both the suits were decided together. Suit of Ramesh Chandra was dismissed, whereas suit for eviction of Sood Sabha was decreed. However, both the Appeals being Appeal No. 36 of 1998 arising out of Suit No. 123 of 1981 and 37 of 1998 arising out of Suit No. 188 of 1987 were decided together. Both the appeals were dismissed.
(3.) ACCORDING to the case of the plain tiff, the plaintiff is a registered society of which Om Prakash Sood is the Secretary. The society is running a Dharamshala in the name of Marak Lal Sundar Lal Mehar Chand Sood Dharamshala Jodhamal Road, Haridwar. The management of the said Dharamshala is being looked after by the plaintiff. The defendant Sri Ramesh Singh was admitted in the Dharamshala as a Passenger (Yarn ). He has entered his name in the register managed by the Dharamshala as a Passenger (Yatri) on temporary basis. The defendant was re quired to vacate the premises, but on one pretext or the other, he posed himself to be the tenant of the premises, when in point of fact he came to visit the place only and was admitted as a licensee. His licence was terminated orally, but he has not vacated the premises and continues to occupy the same unauthorisedly. Hence the present suit was filed for dispossession of the defendant from Dharamshala. The defendant has filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint.;