WAJID SONS EXPORT LIMITED Vs. UMA SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003, passed by District Judge, Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 54 of 1999, whereby said court has dismissed the suit with costs.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.

(3.) DEFENDANT Uma Sah contested the suit, and filed her written statement. She did not specifically deny the fact that present plaintiff purchased the property in suit from erstwhile owner A.K. Goyal and others, nor she denied that the building is old one. However, she pleaded that she is tenant of rooms No. 2, 17 and 18 of Waldorf Hotel @ Rs. 9,000/ - per annum since 1979 which fact was known to plaintiff when he purchased the property. She further pleaded that the plaintiff is bound by the relationship agreed between the present defendant and erstwhile owner A.K. Goyal. It is alleged by the defendant that plaintiff made unsuccessful bid to oust the defendant through his musclemen on which she filed a suit for perpetual injunction before Civil Judge, Nainital, and obtained decree against the present plaintiff not to evict her forcibly. Smt. Uma Sah (defendant) further pleaded that though there is no allotment order in her favour under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, but the principle of Estoppel protects her status as tenant as against Shri A.K. Goyal erstwhile owner and his successor. She claimed her occupation as legal. She admitted that she runs school in the premises in question but pleaded that the same is not meant for business. She further pleaded that the premises in question cannot be said to be vacant nor the defendant is liable to vacate the same, nor liable to pay any mesne profits.