SANT LAL JAIN Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff against. the reversing judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 126 of 1979. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but the learned Additional District Judge. Patiala allowed the plaintiffs appeal and decreed the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant's case was that he had taken on lease under a lease-deed "dated 26-8-196.3 for a term of 10 years a plot of land measuring 51' X 118' situate near the Army Headquarters, Lower Mall, .Patiala for M/s. Jain Motors from its owner Lt. Col. Sadan Singh. He was only a partner of M/s. Jain Motors in 1963, but later became its sole owner in 1967. The defendant/respondent took from the appellant on licence for one year under a deed dated 10-12-1969 the suit shed for carrying on the work of repair of motors, tractors etc. But since he did not vacate the shed after the expiry of the period he terminated the licence and filed the suit on 15-2-1973 for a mandatory injunction directing him to vacate the premises. The respondent opposed the suit contending that the appellant sublet to him a plot of land in 1966-67 and he had raised a new construction thereon and is carrying on workshop business therein since then. He further contended that the relationship between the- parties was that of landlord and tenant and that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable.

(3.) The trial court found that M/s. Jain Motors were the lessees and that the respondent became a sub-tenant of a piece of land and constructed the suit shed thereon and that the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable and dismissed the suit. In the appeal the learned Additional District Judge set aside the trial court's, findings recorded in favour of the respondent and found that no rent is mentioned either in the document executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant or in the written statement and no rent receipt was produced by the respondent, and that the relationship between the parties was only one of licensor and licensee. On the question of delay in filing .the suit the learned Additional District Judge found that the parties remained busy in fighting out criminal cases till the end and that the present suit had been filed thereafter and there had been no undue delay and also that there was no challenge to the trial court's finding that the respondent had not put up any construction of his own and held that the suit for mandatory injunction against the licensee is maintainable. On these findings he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, directing the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the shed in dispute to the appellant.