RAM CHAND PREMI Vs. NAWAB KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant has been in illegal possession and he had occupied the suit premises and by taking advantage of the absence of the defendant- respondent, which lasted for 9-10 months preceding the filing of the suit. Under Issue No. 3A, it has further been held that plaintiff-appellant had failed to produce any material document showing that he is tenant in the building and in the absence of any proof, no relationship of tenant and landlord was established. Accepting the counter claim set up by the defendant-respondent seeking a decree for possession and rejecting the plea of the plaintiff-appellant, both the courts below have held that defendant- respondent never interfered in the possession of the plaintiff-appellant. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant seeking permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent was dismissed and the counter claim preferred by the defendant-respondent was accepted. A decree for possession of the premises in dispute was passed in favour of the defendant-respondent and against the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) THE case set up by plaintiff-appellant in the civil suit No. 799 of 10.6.1988/5.11.1986 is that he is entitled for permanent injunction to restrain defendant-respondent from dispossessing him forcibly and also from causing any interference in his possession in the premises in dispute. He claimed that he is in possession of the suit premises as a tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 150/- since the year 1979 and has been living there with his family. It was further claimed that he is running a business of cycle shed and tea stall over the suit premises under the name and style of Premi Tea Stall. In proof of his claim, he has placed reliance on the ration card and the voter list stating that the same have been issued on the abovesaid address in official record. He claims to be paying regular rent to the defendant-respondent and the payment of rent upto 31.8.1986 is alleged to have been made. However, it has been admitted that neither there is any rent note having been reduced to writing nor the defendant-respondent had ever issued any rent receipt in respect of payment of rent by plaintiff-appellant to the defendant-respondent.

(3.) THE defendant-respondent in her written statement her averred that the defendant-respondent had two sons and a daughter namely S/Sh. Ashok Kumar and Krishan Kumar and Ms. Shakuntla, who had been running a school in the suit premises upto the year 1985. After the closer of the school premises, her sons had started school known as Maharaja Public School in Chawla Colony. It is further alleged that by taking advantage of the helplessness of the defendant-appellant, who is a female and living in the village Atali, the plaintiff-appellant forcibly took possession of the suit premises 9-10 months back preceding the filing of suit. She prayed for recovery of possession and for that purpose has also filed a counter claim. It has been denied that the plaintiff-appellant has ever been inducted as a tenant by the defendant- respondent in the suit premises on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. It has also been controverted that the plaintiff-appellant is living in the premises with his family and doing the business of cycle shed or a tea stall. The question of payment of rent could never arise once he was in relationship of landlord and tenant. The allegations of threats to the plaintiff-appellant to increase the rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 300/- per month or forcibly occupation of the suit premises by the defendant-respondents have also been controverted.