AVTAR SINGH Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant -appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 7th of December, 1978, by virtue of which the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit has been set aside and decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the premises in dispute has been passed.

(2.) Plaintiff Sant Lal Jain filed a suit for mandatory injunction directive the defendant-appellant to vacate a shed within his workshop situated on a plot belonging to Lt. Col. Sadan Singh, near Army Head Quarters, Lower Mall, Patiala. According to the allegations made by the plaintiff, the aforesaid plot measuring 51'x 8' was obtained by the plaintiff on lease from Lt. Col Sadan Singh (now deceased) for M/s. Jain Motors Registered, Dhak Bazar, Patiala, through lease deed dated 26-8-1963 for a period of ten years. It was further pleaded that plaintiff Sant Lal Jain who was earlier partner of M/s Jain Motors in the year 1963, later on became its sole proprietor with effect from 1st of April, 1967. On 10th of December, 1969, a shed for carrying on repair work of motors, tractors etc. was obtained by the defendant-appellant as a licensee by executing licence deed in favour of the plaintiff for a period of one year. Since the aforesaid shed was not vacated by the defendant, even after the expiry of the period of one year. the present suit was filed on 15th of February, 1973. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant who pleaded inter alia that the plot was sublet by the plaintiff in his favour in the year 1966-67 and since then he has been running his workshop after raising construction including the shed. Thus, he pleaded that he was a lessee and not a licensee as alleged by the plaintiff. Since the relationship between the parties being that of landlord and tenant, suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit as it came to the conclusion, that the defendant was a lessee of the premises under the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit for mandatory injunction as such was not maintainable. In appeal these findings of the trial Court have been set aside and as a result thereof the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved against this, the defendant has filed this appeal in this Court.