LALSANGLIANA SAILO Vs. HMINGCHUNGNUNGA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. None appears for the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 despite notice.

(2.) The appellant was the defendant No.1 before the trial court and will be referred as the appellant for convenience in the present appeal. By filing this appeal, the appellant has challenged the Judgment dated 01.02.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Eviction Suit No. 17/2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court has directed the appellant to vacate the suit land covered by LSC No. AZL- 2527/1985. Further, the learned Trial Court has directed the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in this appeal to issue resitement order for the establishment of Petrol Pump or Retail Outlet in favour of the appellant.

(3.) Brief facts of the case is that the appellant and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 entered into an Agreement which was to the effect that the plot of land covered by the aforementioned LSC will be occupied by the appellant on payment of a monthly rent for the purpose of operating a Petrol Pump. On expiry of the said Agreement, a further Agreement was arrived at between the parties on 01.04.2009 wherein, the respondent Nos. 6 in whose name the LSC was mutated agreed to lease out the land to the appellant for another 3 (three) years from the date of the Agreement on rent @ Rs. 15,000/- per month beginning from 01.04.2009 with an increment of 10% every year. The Agreement further contained a condition that the respondent No. 6 as the first party will be the legal and rightful owner of the land in question and he will have the right to transfer the same in part or in whole by way of sale, gift to any person/persons even before the expiry of the Agreement. However, the second party will not be driven out from the land before the expiry of the Agreement period. As soon as the Agreement period is over, the second party i.e. the appellant should vacate the land. It was further provided in the Agreement that as soon as the appellant had no further utilization of the land or after the expiry of the Agreement period, if not extended, he should surrender the land to the first party and the second party can make claim from the first party for the construction of buildings including materials used for construction of buildings etc. and also the works executed by him or his company. The Agreement signed on 01.04.2009 expired after three years. However, before the expiry of the Agreement, the respondent No. 1 purchased the plot of land covered by the said LSC from the respondent No. 6. After purchasing the plot of land, the respondent No. 1 did not disturb the appellant in view of the Agreement between the appellant and the respondent No. 6. However, after the expiry of the period for occupation as per the Agreement, the appellant having not vacated the land, the respondent No. 1 filed Eviction Suit No. 17/2013 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl seeking the eviction of the appellant from the suit land. The appellant contested the Suit by filing a written statement and also by filing a counter claim. According to the appellant, in view of the Agreement, he had every right to claim for the construction of buildings etc. in the suit land from the respondent No. 6. Thus, he claimed a sum of Rs. 35,000,000/-(Rupees thirty five lakh) only from the respondent No.6 through his counter claim filed in the Eviction Suit.