SUNDER LAL Vs. SITA BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Sunder Lal, defendant, against the judgment and decree dated 10-8-1989, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal, filed by the plaintiffs, was accepted, the judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and for possession against the defendants, alleging therein that they were the tenants over the suit land and were entitled to take possession thereof from the defendants. It was alleged that Dr. Ram Lal Bali had taken a plot, which was permanently leased out in his favour by the Municipality in the year 1955 and this land was leased out for the construction of a Clinic and that after taking the land on lease, Dr. Ram Lal Bali had constructed a pucca structure on the said land and had started his medical practice. It was alleged that defendant No. 2, Sunder Lal, used to work as compounder with Dr. Ram Lal Bali, who died in the year 1978 and thereafter the plaintiffs inherited the disputed property. It was alleged that after the death of Dr. Bali, the plaintiffs controlled the said clinic and defendant No. 2, Sunder Dass worked under the plaintiffs and that the lease money was regularly being paid by the plaintiffs as lessees to defendant No. 1, Municipality till 30-9-1983. It was alleged that defendant No. 1, Municipality did not give any notice of termination of lease to Dr. Ram Lal Bali or to the plaintiffs nor the said lease could be terminated. It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 shifted from Meham because of old age but defendant No. 2, Sunder Lal continued to work as compounder under the plaintiffs in the said shop in the absence of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that defendant No. 1, Municipality, in collusion with defendant No. 2, Sunder Lal, created some false documents of lease relating to the disputed building in favour of defendant No. 2 and received Rs. 3,000.00 from defendant No. 2 as advance rent @ Rs. 100.00 per month. It was alleged that the same was illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and for possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. In the written statement, filed by the Municipality, it was alleged that Dr. Ram Lal Bali was only a licensee over the suit property, on payment on tehbazari. It was denied that the plot was permanently leased out in his favour. It was alleged that defendant No. 2, Sunder Lal, had paid all the dues to defendant No. 1, and thereupon the said property had been leased out in his favour. In his separate written statement, it was alleged by defendant No. 2, Sunder Lal, that Dr. Ram Lal Bali had taken the plot on tehbazari from the Municipal Committee in the year 1958 and thereafter, he had raised the construction and had started his clinic. It was alleged that after the death of Dr. Bali, defendant No. 2 was in possession of the disputed property in his own right and had been paying the tehbazari fees to the Municipality. It was alleged that subsequently, the Municipality gave the said premises on rent to him @ Rs. 100.00 per month w.e.f. October 1983 and charged Rs. 3,000.00 from him as transfer fee.