PATTAN DIN Vs. SARDAR KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Court below. Sardar Karam Singh Respondent sued Pattan Din Appellant for recovery of possession and Rs. 24.75 as compensation for use and occupation of a shop including the site. The Respondent alleged that the Appellant was a tenant of the shop which was taken back by the Respondent later on for being included in his compound, that the Appellant wanted the Respondent to accommodate him and the Respondent allowed the Appellant to occupy the shop in suit as a licensee, that the licence was revoked by means of two notices given to him to vacate the shop and that even if the Appellant be treated as a tenant the tenancy had been terminated by notices under Sec. 106, Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) The Appellant contended that he was a tenant of the shop in suit, that he had invested Rs. 24.75 in the repairs of the shop and that in a suit filed by the Appellant against the Respondent for permanent injunction the Appellant was treated as a tenant of the Respondent, an that the Respondent was not entitled to have the shop vacated or to any decree for any compensation.

(3.) The trial court held that the Appellant was a tenant of the Respondent in respect of the shop in suit and not a licensee, that the notice was valid under Sec. 106, Transfer of Property Act, that no notice for termination of tenancy was served as required under Sec. 3 of Act III of 1947 and that the Appellant had failed to prove that he had spent Rs. 24.75 towards the repairs of the shop. The suit was accordingly dismissed by the trial Court for ejectment but decreed for recovery of Rs. 24.75 as arrears of rent. In first appeal the Court below held that the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act No. III of 1947) did not apply and that the Respondent was entitled to a decree for ejectment also. Consequently, the suit for ejectment also was decreed by the first appellate Court.