- (1.) Present appeal, at the instance of the defendant, is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby the suit for possession by way of ejectment of defendant-appellant, from the shops Mark as ABCD shown in red colour in the site plan, was decreed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed in para 3 to 5 by the learned first appellate court in the impugned judgment, are that Sohan Singh-father of the plaintiff was owner of the shops. He inducted the defendant as tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 600/- per month payable in advance. Tenancy was monthly and was at the Will of the landlord. Sohan Singh died on 10.6.2001 and he was succeeded by his widow Gurdev Kaur, sons Amarjit Singh and Charanjit Singh as well as his daughters Pritam Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur in equal shares. The property was divided through family settlement. Eastern shop in dispute came to the share of Pritam Kaur-plaintiff and the western shop came to the share of Amarjit Singh plaintiff. Memorandum of the family partition was scribed on 14.8.2002. As such, the plaintiffs were owners of the shop in dispute. The defendant was told regarding the settlement and he was asked to give rent of the shops to plaintiff- Amarjit Singh. It was averred that Sohan Singh was receiving rent from the defendant during his life time and after him, the rent was being collected by the plaintiff till January, 2004. Thereafter, the defendant did not pay rent and was in arrears of the rent. It was further averred that the plaintiffs did not want to keep the defendant as their tenant in the shop and terminated tenancy through a valid and registered notice dated 3.3.2004. It was further averred that the defendant was bound to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiffs and to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to them. The defendant was requested many times to hand over the vacant possession and to pay the remaining rent but to no effect. Hence the present suit. It was prayed that decree for possession be passed against the defendant for ejectment from the shop as fully detailed in head note of the plaint with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
(3.) Put to notice, the defendant appeared and written statement was filed taking preliminary objections that eastern shop as shown in the site plan was constructed on khasra No. 180/1 which was shamlat and as such, the plaintiffs had no concern with the said shop. It was also submitted that the said shop was constructed by Charanjit-brother of the plaintiffs. Objection was also raised that suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and plea of estoppal was also raised. It was further submitted that the defendant purchased 51/2 sarsahis of land out of khasra No. 180/2 from Charanjit Singh vide registered sale deed dated 4.11.2004 and as such they became co-sharer in the land, hence the plaintiffs have no right to file ejectment petition against a co-sharer. On merits, it was admitted that earlier Sohan Singh was owner in possession of the site shown in blue colour in the site plan being a co-sharer in khasra No. 180/2. He along with his sons have raised construction in the site shown blue in colour. It was further submitted that shop shown in pink colour was constructed by Charanjit Singh and he rented out the same to the defendant. This shop was existing in khasra No. 180/1 which was owned by gram panchayat and it was a clear encroachment by Sohan Singh and his sons on the land of gram panchyat. It was submitted that western shop was taken on rent from Sohan Singh @ Rs. 600/- per month payable at the end of every month and the tenancy was permanent whereas the eastern shop was constructed by Charanjit Singh and was rented out by him. Death of Sohan Singh was admitted. It was also admitted that his estate had been inherited by his widow and children but it was denied that any family settlement took place ever. It was submitted that document dated 14.8.2002 was false, fabricated and was prepared by the plaintiffs in connivance with others. The plaintiffs never became owner of the property in dispute and no such information was given to the defendant. Denying all other averments, dismissal of the suit with costs, was prayed for.;