OM PARKASH Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-defendants are in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit claiming rendition of account w.e.f. 1.4.2000 has been declined on the ground that the agreement to sell dated 9.10.1997 has not been proved in accordance with law. In essence, the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have not been complied with.

(2.) Mr. Virender Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the agreement dated 9.10.1997 was entered into between the plaintiff-defendat for sharing the profit in respect of tailoring business undertaken by him on Ist floor of the shop owned by the plaintiff and w.e.f. 1.4.2000 defendant had stopped paying profit which necessitated him to file the suit. Both the courts below have committed illegality and perversity in holding that the agreement in question had not been proved inasmuch as, none of the witnesses have been examined. In this context, he had drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 4.5.2011. Thus, the following substantial question of law arise for determination by this Court:-

(3.) Mr. Parminder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendant submits that the suit is/was not maintainable for the reason that the appellant-plaintiff has filed an eviction petition claiming arrears of rent w.e.f. 31.3.2002 and the order dated 27.11.2010 was passed wherein the provisional rent has been assessed, then now there is a relationship of landlord and tenant.