RAGHUNATH PRASAD ALIAS CHHAGAN LAL Vs. JANGJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of respondents hence, only the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants were heard.

(2.) THIS is a Second Appeal under Section 100 C. P. C. In the memo of appeal substantial questions of law were not stated as required by Section 100, C. P. C. Appeal was admitted on 24-9-1980 by the following order : "admit. Issue notice on substantial questions of law as stated in ground Nos. 1 and 2. " Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are quoted below : (1) Because the Courts below have not recorded a finding as to when the contract of tenancy had taken place in between the appellant and respondent No. 1, it acted illegally restraining the appellant from executing the decree for possession which he obtained in Suit No. 125 of 1971. (2) Because there being no allotment order in favour of respondent No. 1 and as such his occupation is unauthorised under Section 13 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and is liable for ejectmnet and the contrary view of the Courts below is patently erroneous in law.

(3.) THEREAFTER, Jangjeet Singh filed O. S No. 319 of 1971 against owner landlord Raghunath Prasad and Deen Dayal Parmar giving rise to the instant second appeal. In the plaint of the suit giving rise to the instant second appeal it was stated that initially Deen Dayal was the tenant of the shop in dispute who vacated the same and thereafter Raghunath Prasad gave possession of the shop in dispute to Jangjeet Singh as tenant however, Raghunath Prasad owner landlord told him (Jangjeet Singh) that under law it was necessary to get the shop allotted in favour of Jangjeet Singh which could be quite troublesome hence, rent receipts were continued to be issued in the name of Deen Dayal. It was further stated that Jangjeet agreed to that arrangement willingly and thereafter Jangjeet continued to pay the rent to the owner landlord, however, he came to know that Raghunath Prasad had colluded with Deen Dayal and filed Suit No. 125 of 1971 against Deen Dayal and got the same decreed through compromise on 25-8- 1971. The main grievance of the plaintiff Jangjeet Singh was that he could not be evicted in execution of the decree passed in Suit No. 125 of 1971. The actual relief claimed in the suit was for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining Raghunath Prasad from forcibly evicting the plaintiff Jangjeet.