SURESH KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendant, who is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court whereby suit for recovery and ejectment filed by the respondent Board has been allowed by the Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra dated 17.10.2011 and the plaintiff has been held entitled to take possession of the suit property and the defendant-appellant herein has been directed to hand over the vacant possession within a period of two months failing which the plainiff shall be entitled to recover the same by filing execution petition. The plaintiff-respondent has also been held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.7200/- and if the said amount is not paid within a period of two months then the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on this amount till the date of realisation.

(2.) The suit for recovery of Rs.17,800/- and ejectment from plot bearing No.B-5/258-A measuring 240 sq. yards situated at Subhash Nagar, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra was filed on the ground that defendant was lesssee on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- from 1.5.1989 for a period of 11 months and the rent note was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the use and occupation of the property for domestic purposes and as per the lease deed, the defendant was bound to deliver the vacant possession of the plot in case of default of payment of lease money. It was pleaded that defendant was in arrears of rent upto 31.5.2001 to the tune of Rs.17,800/- and had committed default in terms and conditions of the rent deed and was liable to be ejected. It was pleaded that the defendant had changed the nature of the property by constructing a shop and some portion was commercially used without the permission of the plaintiff and had violated the terms and conditions of the rent deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff which resulted into serving of a legal notice dated 11.1.2001 but inspite of that neither arrears of rent were paid nor the vacant possession was handed over.

(3.) The suit was challenged on various grounds including jurisdiction, limitation, locus standi and it was alleged that defendant was in occupation of the property in question after the partition of the country and had paid Rs.5000/- on the ground of donation and the plaintiff had permitted the defendant to raise construction after approval of the site plan. The property was used for residential purpose and there was no default and that defendant had spent huge amount on the construction of the house. It was also alleged that rent was being collected by the employee of the plaintiff Board and the receipt was never delivered by post. It was hard to believe that rent of 89 months had not been paid.