LAWS(P&H)-2023-2-181

MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. DHARAM PAL

Decided On February 08, 2023
MOHINDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
DHARAM PAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below declaring the plaintiffs/respondents to be owners of the shops in dispute and further passing a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1100.00 towards mesne profit against them.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter will initially be referred to as per the original nomenclature as given in the suit.

(3.) Brief matrix of the case is given as hereunder:- Sh. Tara Chand who was father of the plaintiffs was owner of two shops shown with letters A B C D annexed with and fully detailed in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter to be mentioned as 'shops in dispute'). After his death, the plaintiffs being his legal heirs, became coowners of the shops in dispute. It was pleaded that Sh. Tara Chand had inducted the defendant No.1-Des Raj as a tenant over the shops in dispute on payment of monthly rent @Rs.100.00. It was an oral monthly tenancy. On 24/2/1987, the plaintiffs issued registered notice against the defendant No.1 calling upon him to pay the rent as due against him and also called upon him to hand over vacant possession of the shops in dispute by terminating his tenancy over the same with effect from March 1987. The defendant No.1 failed to pay either the arrears of the rent due against him for the period from 1/5/1986 to 31/3/1987 @Rs.100.00 per month or to hand over the vacant possession of the shops in dispute. He sent reply to the notice on 1/4/1987 thereby denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendants No.2 & 3 on the other hand asserted to be in possession of the shops in dispute through defendant No.1. The plaintiffs while making an alternative submission to the effect that the defendants had no right to retain possession of the shops in dispute even if the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had not been proved, prayed for grant of relief of possession and recovery of arrears of rent.