LAWS(P&H)-1992-1-86

YOGINDER PAL WADHERA Vs. RAM CHARAN SAINI

Decided On January 29, 1992
YOGINDER PAL WADHERA Appellant
V/S
RAM CHARAN SAINI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT filed a suit for possession of upper storey of Shop No. 16, situated in Gandhi Chauk, Pathankot and for recovery of Rs. 2,100/- as damages for use and occupation on the allegations that he being a lessee of the site underneath the building had raised construction thereon and gave upper portion of the shop to the defendant on August 1, 1975 as a licencee for temporary use by him with a premise that he would vacate the same on the asking of the plaintiff-appellant. The defendant having failed to vacate inspite of the repeated requests, was served with a notice dated July 6, 1976, revoking the licence and asking him to hand over the possession and make payment of Rs. 1650/- from August!, 1975 to June 30, 1976 at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month. The defendant having failed to do so, the present suit was filed.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit and controverted the allegations made by the plain till in his plaint. It was pleaded by him that he was a tenant under the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 180/ -. It was denied that the premises were taken for temporary use and he had promised to vacate the same on the asking of the plaintiff The defendant took a categorical stand that he was a tenant under the plaintiff and, therefore, could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :

(3.) THE defendant feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal which was finally disposed of by the learned Second Additional District Judge Gurdaspur. The learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings as recorded by the trial Court under issue Nos. 1 and 4. The findings on all other issues were, however, upheld. As a consequence thereof, the appeal was accepted. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff has tiled the present second appeal and has challenged the findings as recorded by the learned Additional District Judge.