SURJIT SINGH Vs. MANJIT SINGH KATOCH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed by the trial Court and appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.3.2011.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondents filed the instant suit for possession by way of ejectment of the appellant from the shop in dispute which was under the tenancy of the appellant. The plaintiff-respondents claimed arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.2004 to 31.8.2007 with regard to the shop in dispute which was originally owned by Shri G.S. Katoch and after his death, the respondents inherited the same, being his legal heirs and successors-ininterest. According to the respondents, Shri G.S. Katoch had given the shop in dispute on monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- to the appellant vide rent note dated 27.8.1998. As per the further averments, the rent was to be paid by first of every month and it was to be enhanced @ 15% of the total amount after every three years. Father of the respondents died on 30.11.2004. It was alleged in the suit that after the death of their father, the appellant has stopped making payment of the rent and since he was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.12.2004 to 31.8.2007 @ 2,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.66,000/-, a notice was served upon him under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, revoking the tenancy and requesting him to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute. Since the appellant failed to make payment of arrears of rent and also hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute, the instant suit was filed.

(3.) Upon notice, appellant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the appellant has paid the rent upto 30.6.2007 and rent for the month of July, 2007 was only due. It was further stated that no rent receipt was issued to him by the plaintiff-respondents. In fact, the plaintiff-respondents wanted to enhance the rate of rent. Denying all other averments, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.