OM PRAKASH Vs. HAZI MUKHTAR WASEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In original suit no. 432/2009 (Hazi Mukhtar Waseem Vs. Om Prakash) plaint case was that plaintiff is owner in possession of property situated in premises no. 338, Mohalla Beharipur Qurollan. In this property the defendant was inducted on basis of rent deed on 06.12.2002 as tenant in a portion of said premises for open land and tin roof structure, as described in plaint, for 11 months on monthly rent of Rs. 500.00. The said rent-deed was further renewed through power of attorney of plaintiff from time to time till 5.10.2008, and in the meantime the rent was enhanced from Rs. 500/to Rs. 600.00 per month exclusive taxes. After the said extended period, tenancy of defendant expired and the same was not renewed. Then on request of plaintiff, the defendant had not vacated the said premises. Therefore, plaintiff had filed suit for decree of eviction of defendant, and recovery of possession and also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages from defendant for unauthorized occupation.

(2.) In written statement filed in original suit, the defendant pleaded to be the tenant of one Pyare Khan and stated that he had regularly paid rent to Pyare Khan,and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in that property. The defendant has never executed any rent-deed dated 06.12.2002, nor executed any further rent-deed as stated in plaint. No notice was ever reached from plaintiff to defendant. The plaintiff's suit should be dismissed.

(3.) The trial court framed issues, accepted adduced evidences and thereafter Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) 2nd, Bareilly had passed the judgment dated 30.11.2011 by which suit was partly decreed and defendant was directed to vacate the possession of disputed property no. 338, Mohalla Biharipur, Quarran, handove it to plaintiff and to pay the rent and damages to plaintiff @ 600.00 per month. In its judgment, trial court had given finding of fact to the effect that earlier land-lord of defendant was Pyare Lal, but later on the plaintiff became its owner who had filed original suit no. 119/2003, in which parties had compromised and said suit was decreed on the basis of compromise. The trial court had also appreciated the oral and documentary evidences and gave specific finding of fact that defendant had became tenant of plaintiff and executed the registered rent-deed before Sub-Registrar which was extended from time to time; and even the defendant had given evidence and had proved the execution of rent-deed admitting the plaintiff to be owner and landlord. The trial court had also given specific finding that disputed property was not occupied by defendant in performance of any agreement to sell as pleaded in his written statement and his pleadings of written statement are not proved.