SATISH KUMAR Vs. GURDYAL MAKKAR ALIAS PUNJAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC, the appellant has challenged two concurrent findings i.e. one dated 16.05.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 26/2011 and the other dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in CS No. 334/2009.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:- The respondent herein i.e. plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge, Delhi had filed a suit praying for mandatory injunction to direct the appellant/defendant to hand over the possession of suit property to him. The respondent/plaintiff had also prayed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the appellant/defendant form creating any third party interest in the suit property. The prayer was also made for passing a decree for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- being the arrears of licence fee. It was averred in the aforesaid suit that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of six sheds bearing premises No. 609 to 614, A-Block, Gharoli Farm, Delhi i.e., suit property and was running a dairy farm there upto August, 2000. Thereafter, due to some personal difficulties, respondent/plaintiff had permitted the appellant/defendant to retain the suit premises as a licensee w.e.f. 01.09.2000 upto 31.08.2002 on a licence fee of Rs. 7,000/- p.m. It was further averred that the parties had agreed that the licence would stand terminated automatically on 31.08.2002. It was alleged that the appellant/defendant had paid the licence fee upto January, 2002 and thereafter he did not make the payment. It was further averred that when respondent/plaintiff was running the business from the suit property, no water or electricity connection was taken by him. On 01.09.2002, the appellant/defendant was called upon by the respondent/plaintiff to pay Rs. 49,000/- towards arrears of licence fee w.e.f. February, 2002 till August, 2002 and to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to him. However, the appellant/defendant refused to vacate the suit property. The appellant/defendant had also filed several cases against respondent/plaintiff claiming himself to be the tenant in the suit property. It was alleged that in the year 2003, the appellant/defendant was also caught indulging in the theft of electricity by BSES and a case was also registered against him. As the appellant/defendant did not vacate the suit property, the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit against him making the aforesaid prayers.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and thereafter parties led evidence. Respondent/plaintiff examined himself as PW1, his son Deepak Makkar @ Deepa as PW2, Harish Pal as PW3, Karanveer Singh as PW4. Appellant/defendant examined himself as DW1 and closed his evidence.