MAHABIR PRASAD AND ORS. Vs. RAM KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated December 16th, 1983, passed by Shri V.S. Shukla, Additional Judge Small Causes Court in Regular Appeal No. 96 of 1983 (Laxman Prasad Versus Ram Kumar Singh) dismissing he plaintiff's appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated May 13,1983, passed by Shri Rajesh Chandra, Munsif South in Regular Suit No. 552 of 1982 (Laxman Prasad v. Ram Kumar Singh) dismissing the plaintiff's claim in the above suit.

(2.) THE facts of he case, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed the above suit with the allegations to the effect that plaintiffs "wee and have been" in possession of Shop No. 13 New Market Charbagh, Lucknow. It was averred in the plaint that Ram Kumar, defendant -respondent has been a tenant of he shop and he used to pay the rent of he shop to Nagarmahapalika, Lucknow which is the owner of he shop. According to the plaintiff, defendant -respondent Ram Kumar Singh has sub -let the shop in dispute in Shop No. 15 to the plaintiff sometime in the month of April, 1976 on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/ -. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant after having sub -let the said shop to the plaintiff, had left for his village in District Jaunpur in April, 1976 and since then, the plaintiff claimed himself to be in lawful possession of the said shop and according to plaintiffs case the plaintiff has been carrying on the business or manufacturing and selling rabri in the shop and used to pay regularly, the rent to the defendant @ Rs. 300/ - per month. The plaintiff further averred that defendant wants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the shop and desires to dispossess with which object, defendant had quarreled on June 9,1972 hen the police arrived on the spot and both the parties were arrested on 3rd December, 1982. The defendant along with certain persons came to shop while he the plaintiff (sic) closing the shop, instigated (sic) them to dispossess the plaintiffs shop and threw away the plaintiffs goods but somehow the plaintiff succeeded in locking of the shop but as the defendant is adamant to dispossess the plaintiff, otherwise (than) in due course of law and so the plaintiff had to file, according to plaintiff's case, the suit for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the said shop.

(3.) THE defendant further asserted that while plaintiff and defendant were arrested by the police, on the intervention of the neighboring shop -keeper compromise had been executed between the parties and the plaintiff did promise to vacate the shop within six months i.e. upto 6th December, 1982 but instead of vacating the shop by the stipulated period, plaintiff had filed a suit in order to maintain his occupation or user in an unauthorised manner. The defendant asserted that conduct of the plaintiff has not been fair and that he is not entitled to get the relief for injunction, being granted in his favour.