MARKET COMMITTEE Vs. SHRI CHETAN SACHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost before both the courts below, the appellant -defendant (herein referred as, 'the defendant') has preferred this regular second appeal. The substantial question of law to be determined in this appeal is as under: - As to whether the finding recorded by the courts below to hold the plaintiff -respondent to be the licensee and not a lessee, is perverse and is based on mis -appreciation of evidence?

(2.) KALUMAL Shorimal Nathumal Sachdev Rangwala, Private Family land Dharmath Trust, Katra Hari Singh Amritsar, through its Managing Trustee Chetan Sachdev plaintiff -respondent (herein referred as, 'the plaintiff') has filed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Market Committee to hand over the possession of the licensed premises measuring 12000 square yards of land in village Badali Guru Urban, Tehsil and District Amritsar comprised in khasra No. 414 min khata/khatauni No. 3/16 as per jamabandi for the year 2000 -01. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the land in question was given to the defendant committee for use as grain market for a period of one year commencing from 1.3.2004 to 31.3.2005 as licensee. A license deed dated 27.5.2004 was executed. After the expiry of license period, a notice dated 16.4.2005 was served upon the defendant to surrender the possession of the land in question to the trust. The notice was replied by the Secretary of the Market Committee on 21.4.2005 (Ex. P4) claiming possession over the suit property as tenant. The trust filed the suit before the trial court claiming the relief of mandatory injunction; mesne profits and relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using and occupying the licensed premises and from carrying out any construction or setting up of permanent structure over the land in dispute. The defendants alleged their possession over the suit property as tenant under Devki Nandan Sachdev @ Rs. 7,500/ - per annum and using the site as grain market for the public welfare. Regarding the licensed deed, it has been alleged that it is not a registered document and is not admissible in evidence. It has been pleaded that this document, in fact, is a rent deed. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land which is in possession of the defendant for the last about 30 years. In nutshell, the defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff with the plea that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant and not of licensor and licensee. The defendant also took the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the suit and the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the present suit.

(3.) REPLICATION was also filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: -