HANS RAJ Vs. DHARAM PAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 12.2.1985 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge II, Jind whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Hans Raj against the judgment/decree dated 18.10.1982 rendered by the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Narwana vide which he decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of the demised premises as described in the heading of the plaint. The factual matrix is that the demised shop owned by Arya Samaj Narwana had been tenanted to Haveli Ram father of Hans Raj defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 45.00 on 1.9.1965 vide rent note for one year commencing from 1.9.1965. Haveli Ram became a statutory tenant. He breathed his last on 21.5.1980. With his death, the tenancy being not heritable became extinct, but nonetheless, the defendant Hans Raj son of Haveli Ram is continuing in occupation as a trespasser. By serving a notice, he was called upon to vacate the premises, but to no effect. In his written statement, Hans Raj - defendant has inter-alia pleaded that he and his father were running joint business of cloth in the disputed shop and after his father's death, he is occupying this shop in the same capacity as a tenant and not as a trespasser. That the tenancy being perpetual and contractual, he has a right to continue as such. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(2.) The learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiffs holding that Haveli Ram was a statutory tenant and the defendant is not direct tenant under the plaintiffs. Issue No.2 was returned in favour of the plaintiffs holding that they have locus standi to file the suit. Issues No.4, 5, 6 and 7 were held against the defendant.

(3.) After examining the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for possession of the demised premises. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendant went up in appeal, which was met the same fate. Being dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, the defendant has preferred this appeal.