- (1.) This is defendant No.1-appellant's (herein referred as, 'the defendant') second appeal against the judgment dated 12.10.2006 passed by the first appellate court affirming the judgment passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession and declining the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 for seeking possession over the shop as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. The main contest is between the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff.
(2.) The main grievance of the defendant No.1 is that when the courts below had not held the plaintiff- respondent (herein referred as, 'the plaintiff') as tenant, then her counter claim was bound to be decreed. As such, the prime question to be determined in this case is that "whether plaintiff has failed to prove herself to be as tenant over the suit property, if so, whether the counter claim for seeking possession filed by the defendant was liable to be decreed -
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed herself to be a tenant under defendant No.1 and sought permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession over the shop in dispute. Her claim is mainly based on electricity, water and telephone bills.;