SOM PARKASH Vs. BANSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE has been thrown by way of this civil 1st. appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Rajouri on 10.4.87 whereby a decree for possession of suit shop and the recovery of Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation for wrongful user of the shop has been passed in favour of the respondent -plaintiff against the appellant defendant.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of one shop situated in Ward No.4, Rajouri owned by him against the defendant and also for recovery of Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation for the wrongful use and occupation of the shop with effect from 13.5.81. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the suit shop from one Sham Lal vide sale deed dated May 13, 1981. According to him, Sham Lal was carrying on the business of manufacturing Attache -case and Trunk in partnership with Bansi Lal son of Sh. Bindra Ban. The said business came to an end on May 1st. 1981. Bansi Lal during the partnership had engaged defendant as his helper. Suit premises were vacated when the partnership was cancelled. Defendant wrongfully occupied the suit premises without permission of Sham Lal. Plaintiff purchased the suit shop on May 13, 1981, but defendant is continuing to occupy the shop without paying rent. Suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the owner of the suit shop was Abnashi Kohli. Sham Lal was the only benami purchaser. Abnashi Kohli was not the State Subject. He was tenant of Abnashi Kohli and was paying the rent of Rs. 15O/ - month to month to him through his son called Bhola (Ravinder Kumar. According to the appellant, Sham Lal was not in picture. However sale deed was executed by Sham Lal in the name of respondent and the consideration was paid to Abnashi Kohli. Appellant continued to be tenant of the present owner and paid him rent. Present owner/ respondent did not execute any receipt and thereafter he refused to take rent and therefore, he wanted to eject him. On the pleading of the parties the following three issues were framed: - "1. Whether the defendant is a tenant of the suit premises on behalf of the plaintiff? If so, how? OPD. 2. In case issue no.1 is held not proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation for use and occupation of the suit shop from the defendant ? OPP.

(3.) WHETHER the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the proper valuation? OPD." 3. Defendant in support of his case has examined Narshi Lal DW -1, Kewal Krishan DW -2, Kesar Ram DW -3, Sushpal Sharma DW -4, Anwar Hussain DW -5, Lal Chand DW -6, Sham Lal DW -7, Ravinder Kumar (Bhola) DW -8, Ashok Kumar DW -9, Gulshan Kumar DW -10 as his witnesses. Besides, defendant has also appeared as his witness. Plaintiff has examined Ashok Kumar PW -1, Des Raj PW -2, Lovely Gupta PW -3, Lok Nath PW -4, Mohd Ramzan PW -5, Abnashi Ram PW -6. Bansi Lal respondent has also appeared as his witness. Besides this, some documents were produced in the shape of sale deed, partnership deed and affidavit.