PARAMJIT SINGH DHILLON Vs. S L KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brief the 'Code') challenging concurrent findings of fact holding that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents and the counter-claim made by the defendant-respondents, has been decreed by both Against order of Karnail Singh, Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, D/- 1-6-2005. the Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant has been held to be a licensee of the premises in dispute for a limited period. Initially, the license was created from 2-1-1999 to 30-11-1999 giving permission to the plaintiff-appellant to use the demise premises on paymkent of 8630/- per month as license fee. On the request made by the plaintiff-appellant, defendant-respondents had further agreed to execute fresh license deed which was duly executed by plaintiff; appellant on 2-12-1999. The same also expired on 31-10-2000. The license deed was duly signed by the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent No. 1. There were two attesting witnesses namely; Sarvshri Naval Kishore and Manmohan Kapoor (Exhibit D5). The rough sketch plan of the demise premises was also signed by the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respodnent No. 1 along with aforementioned attesting witnesses which has been brought on record as exhibit D6. It was made clear in the license deed that the plaintiff appellant was to use the demise premises for conducting classes of Electro Homeopathy College. After the expiry of license on 31-10-2000, no fresh license deed was granted by the defendant-respondent No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. It has been found by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff-appellant has been illegally occupying the demise premises after the expiry of license and has not paid license fee from 1-11 -2000 till the passing of the order.

(3.) When the legal notice was served upon the plaintiff-appellant on 22-12-2001 to vacate the demise premises, a false reply was sent by him taking various stand including the assertion that he was never inducted as a tenant at the rate of rupees 10,000/- per month nor defendant-respondent No. 1 ever parted with the possession of demise premises in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for a limited period. It was further claimed that plaintiff-appellant was inducted as a licensee over a part of the house which was earlier in occupation of defendant-respondent No. 1. Same assertion was made with regard to electricity meter which was stated to be installed on the ground floor in the name of defendant-respondent No. 1 and on the first floor in the name of his wife. However, defendant-respondent has claimed that when he visited Jalandhar from Delhi, the plaintiff-appellant made an attempt to prevent him and his family members even from entering the demise premises and threatened them with dire consequences. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR at the instance of defendant-respondent No. 1 was registered at P. S. Division No. 6, Jalandhar.