NIKKA SINGH Vs. SAJJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as regards the shop fully detailed in the heading of the plaint situated on Railway Road within Municipal limits Zira. It was pleaded that he was occupying the shop in dispute as tenant of Sajjan Singh-defendant No.1 since the year 1970. Initially, the rate of rent was ` 125/- per month. Subsequently, since the year 1990, the rate of rent was enhanced to ` 250/- per month. The plaintiff however, pleaded that no receipt regarding rent had ever been issued by Sajjan Singh-defendant No.1 and it was an oral tenancy. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 is not receiving any rent from the plaintiff since September, 1998 and as such is insisting upon vacation of the demised shop. It was also pleaded that defendant No.2-Gurmej Kaur, who is wife of defendant No.1 is alleging herself to be the owner of shop in dispute but the plaintiff had taken the shop on rent from defendant No.1 and as such there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Gurmej Kaur and plaintiff. On 28.11.2000, it was alleged that the defendants came to the shop in dispute and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the shop within a day or two, failing which they would demolish the shop and would dispossess the plaintiff from the shop in dispute forcibly. Accordingly, the suit had been instituted.

(3.) UPON hearing the counsel for the parties and having appreciated the evidence adduced on record, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff/appellant filed a civil appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur and vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.2011, the appeal of the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed. It is under such circumstances that the plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court.