- (1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 31/01/2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 10/2014 whereby, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 19/02/2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in civil suit No. 130/2013 (300/2011).
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant -plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents -defendants inter alia, alleging that the plaintiff has been a tenant in a shop described in para No. 2 of the plaint. The defendant No. 1 wants to dispossess the plaintiff without taking due process of law with the help of the defendant Nos. 2 to 6.
(3.) THE defendant No. 1 resisted the suit by filing a written statement, inter alia, stating therein that the appellant -plaintiff was neither being dispossessed nor threatened to be dispossessed out of the shop without due process of law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant -plaintiff that even thought a notice for termination of tenancy was served upon the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be said to be in unauthorized possession but is a tenant holding over. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. It is also submitted that the undertaking given by the defendant No. 1 was not given by the other defendants and the right to seek relief under the general law has not been barred by the said undertaking; this aspect has not been considered by both the Courts below.;