RAJ KUMAR AND ASHOK KUMAR MOOLCHAND ALIAS GOLEY JAIN Vs. RADHEY SHYAM CHINTARAM LOHIA AND NAGAR PALIKA PRASHASHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25. 3. 1992 passed by the 1st Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Tikamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/91, whereby the judgment and decree dated 12. 12. 1990 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Tikamgarh has been reversed and set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit against the defendants/respondents praying therein that their father Moolchand was a tenant of the suit shop owned by Municipality, Tikamgarh and after the death of their father on 13. 12. 1985, being sons they inherited the tenancy right and by holding over the tenancy right they are tenants of defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs further prayed that defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 be directed to deliver possession of the suit shop to them.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaint averments the suit shop was taken by Moolchand, who was father of the plaintiffs and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Moolchand and the Municipality. This relationship is also mentioned and maintained in the record of the Municipality. In the month of April, 1985 defendant No. 1 requested Moolchand to deliver possession of the suit shop for 3-4 months and it was assured by defendant No. 1 that after 3-4 months he would deliver possession to Moolchand. Since Moolchand was an ailing person and on account of illness he was unable to carry on the business properly, eventually on the assurance given by defendant No. 1 that he would vacate the suit shop, he delivered the possession of the suit shop on temporary basis to him. On account of illness Moolchand breathed his last on 13. 12. 1985, but the defendant No. 1 did not deliver the possession of the suit shop either to Moolchand or to the plaintiffs who are the sons of Moolchand. Hence the instant suit has been filed.