SAWWAD ALI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohd. Saeed-II, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned cousnel for the respondents.

(2.) The appellant, by filing present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C."), assails the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Unnao, in Civil Appeal No.37 of 2001, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, bearing Regular Suit No.372 of 1999 titled as Sawwad Ali vs. Rajesh Kumar and others, restraining the respondents-defendants from forcibly dispossessing him except in due process of law. The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that he is a tenant in a shop situated in Mohalla Naseemganj, Kasba Bangarmau, Tehsil Safipur, District Unnao, on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- since 1992, the appellant is carrying on business of repairing of motorcycles in the said shop; the disputed shop was constructed in the year 1981-1982, the appellant-plaintiff had taken the disputed shop on rent from the father of respondents-defendants and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was deposited as a security on the condition that the amount will be paid to the appellant-plaintiff at the time of vacating the disputed shop. It was also averred that the appellant-plaintiff paid rent to the father of the respondents-defendants but no rent receipt was issued to him, after the death of father of the respondents-defendants, rent was paid to the respondents-defendants and the rent has been paid till June 1999. It was also averred that when the appellant-plaintiff demanded the rent receipt, father of the respondents-defendants stated that there is some dispute regarding the ownership of disputed shop, and therefore, no rent receipt was issued. It was further averred that in the Ist week of July, 1999 when the appellant-plaintiff paid the rent, the respondents-defendants asked the appellant-plaintiff to vacate the disputed shop as the respondents wanted to reconstruct the disputed shop as well as other shops. When the appellant-plaintiff demanded back security amount of Rs.5,000/- which was given by him, the respondents became annoyed, and therefore, threatened to take forcibly possession of the disputed shop. Hence, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction.