MULAKH RAJ Vs. SEWA SAMITI REGD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-9-1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1989 passed by the trial Court (dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant) was upheld.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts as contained in the amended plaint are that the appellant had khokha on the land belonging to the Sewa Samiti. The Sewa Samiti decided to construct pucca shops for the benefit of the khokha-holders and it was agreed that costs of construction would be borne by the khokha-holders and each khokha-holder would pay Rs. 250/- per month as rent to respondent No. 1 for the shops constructed by it in lieu of their khokha; that the plaintiff-appellant paid the costs of construction of the shop to the Sewa Samiti which, in turn, gave him shop No. 34 in lieu of his khokha on the main road; that the plaintiff appellant was in actual possession of shop No. 34 and paid rent of this shop amounting to Rs. 1,750/- for the period from February 1984 to August 1984, vide receipt dated 8-3-1584; that, during the pendency of construction of shop No. 34 in lieu of the khokha, the plaintiff-appellant took shop No. 29 from respondent No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- including electricity charges and paid rent at this rate, vide receipt No. 793 dated 8-3-1984; that, however, later on, respondent No. 1 stopped accepting the rent of shop No, 29 as it wanted to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant forcibly; that, since on 4-6-1984 the General Secretary of the Sewa Samiti and other persons came to the shop of the plaintiff-appellant and tried to dispossess him forcibly, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for injunction and obtained ex parte injunction from the Court on 5-6-1984; that, however, respondent No. 1, with the help of respondent No. 2, forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff-appellant; and that, consequently, the plaintiff-appellant got the plaint amended and the relief of possession about shop No. 29 was also claimed.

(3.) THE respondents contested the suit and filed separate written statements, taking identical pleas. They stated that the plaintiff appellant was one of the khokha-holders on the land of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 had agreed to construct pucca shops for the khokha-holders on the terms and condition them; that the cost of construction of the shops was to be donated by the khokha-holders and the rent was agreed individually with each khokha-holder; that the plaintiff-appellant had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month of shop No. 34 which was allotted to him and possession was also given to him after construction that an amount of Rs. 1,750/- was paid by the plaintiff appellant to respondent No. 1 as part of donation and not rent; that at the request of the plaintiff appellant, respondent No. 1 had given shop No. 29 (which was already constructed) to the plaintiff-appellant for use as a licensee till his shop No. 34 was constructed; that it was further agreed that the plaintiff-appellant would pay to respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as donation and he would immediately vacate shop No. 29 after shop No. 34 was constructed; that the respondents denied that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid by the plaintiff appellant to respondent No. 1 as rent for shop No 29 that the construction of shoo No. 34 was completed in March 1984 and it was allotted to the plaintiff-appellant; and that, thereafter, respondent No. 1 stopped accepting the donation from the plaintiff-appellant for shop No. 29 and requested the plaintiff-appellant to vacate shop No. 29 and shift to shop No. 34. The respondents denied that they had taken possession of shop No. 29 forcibly but asserted that, on 8-6-1984, the plaintiff-appellant himself had vacated the shop and delivered possession to respondent No. 1. They further stated that since on 10-6-1984 the plaintiff-appellant had executed a writing whereby he admitted that he had vacated shop No. 29 of his own accord, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant had no locus standi to file the, suit for possession.