SATE SING Vs. ROOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very peculiar circumstance has arisen for consideration before this Court in the instant Second Appeal. The brief facts for consideration as involved herein are that in relation to the property in dispute, which has been more particularly described in the plaint as contained in paragraph 2, constituting of Khasra No. 1484 was having a total area of 1.153 hectares of land, out of it a small piece of land measuring about 0.008 hectare of land, which admittedly was recorded as property belonging to Kesherehind, was admittedly in occupation of the plaintiff over which he contends that he has raised a small pucca construction by way of shop from where he claims was running his fair price shop. Later on as per the plaint averments it is contended by the plaintiff that over the super structure, which was created on the land which was belonging to the Kesherehind, he has let out the said shop constructed by him to the defendants on a rent, which was payable at the rate of 7,000/- per annum to the plaintiff w.e.f. January, 2001.

(2.) There is a specific case pleaded by the plaintiff/appellant to the effect that ever since the creation of tenancy with regard to the super structure over the land in question the defendant admittedly had remitted the rent consistently for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and also for some part of the year 2004, the rent was remitted partially for a few months. Later on it was stopped to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that thereafter after paying the rent upto 2004, the defendant had stopped the remittance of the rent. Consequently, in order to restore back the possession of the shop by terminating the tenancy, which according to the plaintiff has been let out to the defendant, there had been series of proceedings including the one as drawn by way of Case No. 588 of 2007 'Roop Singh vs. Mohan Singh' under Sections 323, 504 and 506. Though the reference to the proceedings on a criminal side may not be having any bearing as far as the decision pertaining to the present second appeal is concerned as its altogether a different proceeding under criminal law having altogether different legal consequence.