BRIJ RANI Vs. TULSI LOSHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge. Nainital on 29.09.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 14 or 2005 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Haldwani in suit No. 17 of 2003 by which the appellant court as well as the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs and passed the eviction order against the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners are the tenant in the disputed premises and it is alleged in the plaint before the court below that Mohan Chandra Losani let out the disputed plot to Chote Lal @ Rs. 175/ - p.m. It is also averred in the plaint that Chote Lal constructed a temporary fur over the land and he started his Atta Chakki over the land. Shri Chote Lal died and his legal heirs started the business over the disputed land. It was further alleged that the defendants/petitioners had not paid any rent from July, 2000 to the date or notice. A notice terminating the tenancy u/s 106 T.P. Act was given by the respondents/plaintiffs on 22.02.2002 which was served upon the defendants on 26.02.2002. Inspite of the notice the defendant/appellants had not vacated the premises and the respondents filed a suit before the competent court for the eviction and arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the defendants/appellants. It was admitted in the written statement that the said plot was taken on lease from Mohan Chandra Losali and they have purchased the 'MALWP: of the temporary fur from the Raj Bahadur Singh. It was alleged that the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 were not the tenants of the said premises. It was alleged that they had deposited the entire claimed amount under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 or 1972. It was further alleged that a suit was filed by the appellants against the Mohan Chandra Losali for the injunction which was decreed by the competent court.

(3.) THE trial court after perusal of the pleadings framed the necessary issues. The trial court came to the conclusion that the defendants/appellants and respondent No.4 to 7 were the tenants or the said premises and it was further held that the said fur was not purchased by the defendants/appellants from Raj Bahadur Singh and it was further. held that the court had got jurisdiction to hear the suit and the learned Trial court decreed the suit for the rent and ejectment of the appellants and the learned trial court has also held that the defendant/appellants were the defaulter and had to pay the 'arrears of rent from July. 2000. It was further held that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to get 7,195/ -. Ultimately the suit was decreed for eviction.