RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nawan Shahar vide which the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiffs was decreed with direction that defendant should cease to use the shop shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint and should hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of order and against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated 14.1.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nawan Shahar whereby the appeal of the defendant -appellant was dismissed with costs.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are the owners of shop shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint bounded as: East : Plaintiffs West : Road North : Plaintiffs South : Plaintiffs situated at Nawan Shahar, District Jalandhar which was taken by the defendant as licensee on 1.1.1993 on payment of Rs. 140/ - p.m. as compensation for its use. The licence was reduced into writing on 25.1.1993 by the defendant in favour of plaintiff Kewal Krishan predecessor -ininterest of the present plaintiffs. It was stipulated in the licence that actual and legal control of the shop would remain with the plaintiffs and defendant will only be entitled to use the shop against compensation fee of Rs. 140/ - p.m. It was also agreed that he will not hand over possession of the shop to anybody else and plaintiffs would have a right to revoke the licence. It was further averred that the defendant did not pay compensation for the use of the shop from 1.11.1993 and committed breach of the terms of the licence. The plaintiffs revoked licence with a notice to the defendant and filed suit for mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant should cease/stop using the shop in question and deliver the possession of the shop to the plaintiffs. It was also prayed in the suit that a sum of Rs. 1400/ - be also got recovered from the defendant as compensation for the use of the shop in dispute from 1.11.1993 to 31.8.94 @ Rs. 140/ - p.m. On notice of the suit, defendant appeared and filed written statement in which it was alleged on merits that the shop in dispute is in possession of the defendant since 1979 as a tenant and licence deed is only a camouflage. It was alleged that the defendant is in actual possession having legal control over the property in question on payment of Rs. 140/ - per month as rent.
(3.) THE plaintiffs filed replication in which averments made in the written statement were controverted.;