HARINDER PAL SINGH Vs. KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") against the Respondent/ Defendant (hereinafter, "Defendant"). Lease deed dated 12th January, 1982 was entered into between the predecessors of the Plaintiff with the Defendant. The admitted rent as per the lease deed was Rs.5,911/- per month. The Defendant was paying rent to the predecessors of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had purchased the property from the predecessors in 1996 but the mutation in his favour took place only in 2006. Since the Defendant did not pay the rent to the Plaintiff even after intimation, but continued to pay the same to the predecessors of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff wanted to terminate the tenancy. He demanded that the rent be paid in his name vide notice dated 27th November, 2007. However, despite the receipt of the said letter, it is the allegation of the Plaintiff that the rent was not paid. The Plaintiff, vide notice dated 20 th September, 2008, terminated the tenancy and demanded the arrears of rent be paid within 15 days.

(2.) The Defendant did not hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property. A suit was then filed seeking possession, recovery of rent and mesne profits. The said suit being No.05/2008 was withdrawn due to technical objections. The Plaintiff thereafter served a statutory notice dated 1 st April, 2009 under Sections 106 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 115 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The amounts due were quantified. Despite service of the said notice, the Defendant did not vacate the property. Hence the subject suit came to be filed on 22nd August, 2009 where the following reliefs were prayed for:

(3.) The stand of the Defendant was that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the property and that the Plaintiff had not issued any notice intimating the ownership or the sale of the property in favour of the Plaintiff. Objections under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, "CPC") were also raised. The following issues were framed in the suit: