HARI CHAND Vs. KAMLA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2014 passed by Ms.Narinder Kaur, Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011 passed by Shri Bhupinder Nath, the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, was partly accepted but the plaintiffs were held entitled to claim rent for three years prior to 26.04.2010 by modifying the judgment of trial court in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the plaintiffs before the trial court filed suit for possession against the defendant with the averments that Telu Ram son of Badama leased out the land measuring 6 kanals 15 marlas being 1/10th share of 67 kanal 16 marla as described in the head note of the plaint. Telu Ram died on 22.03.1998 and the plaintiffs are his legal heirs. The suit land was leased out for a period of 20 years i.e. from 15.06.1981 to 14.06.2001 and their lease period expired on 14.06.2001. After the expiry of the lease period, the defendant has not handed over the vacant possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that they are also entitled for mesne profits of the suit land for its unauthorized use and occupation after the expiry of period of lease. The defendant was requested several times to hand over the vacant possession but he failed to do so. Hence, the suit was filed. Upon put to notice, the defendant filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit; the plaintiffs have no cause of action; the civil courts have no jurisdiction; the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit is under value. The defendant, being in continuous possession has become the tenant by holding that the plaintiffs can file a petition under the Tenancy Act or under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. During the pendency of the lease period, Telu Ram entered into an agreement to sell the suit land and after the expiry of the lease period, the defendant is in possession and is protected under Section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act. Even the defendant after the expiry of lease period has become tenant holding over the suit property. It is denied that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Telu Ram.

(3.) IN order to prove their case, one of the plaintiffs Naresh Kumar appeared as PW -1 and examined Vinod Kumar as PW -2 and tendered certain documents.