RAKESH Vs. SMT. MAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that the present appellant/plaintiff had taken shop No. 3 Palika Bazaar, Panipat/suit property, on rent from the respondents in the month of July 2015 @ Rs.20000.00 per month. From the inception of tenancy appellant is running shop under the name and style of R.K. Tailor and regularly paying the rent through cash/ cheque. The payment of rent is proved from cheques No. 890616, 896017, 896021, 896023 and 896030, drawn on Punjab National Bank, GT Road, Panipat, issued from appellant's account and duly encashed by the respondents and exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A, Ex. PW6/B, PW6/C, PW6/D and PW6/E. No receipt was given by the respondents. The appellant got the shop registered with Labour Department, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Ist Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh and registration certificate has been placed on record as Ex. P2. The respondent tried to forcibly dispossess the appellant, resulting in filing of the suit for permanent injunction simplicitor by the appellant. The respondent filed written statement that the shop in question was given on license and not on rent and also filed a counter claim that appellant being a licensee and license period having expired claimed possession alongwith exorbitant license fee of Rs.50000.00 - per month. The suit of the appellant was dismissed on 19/2/2020 and the counter claim filed by the respondent was allowed and decree for permanent injunction was passed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directing the appellant to remove the articles from the shop in question and to pay Rs.20000.00 per month on account of use and occupation charges. The appellant filed appeal which was also dismissed on 29/2/2024. Hence, the instant RSA.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts erred in holding the appellant to be licensee whereas he was a tenant. Learned counsel contends that the fact that the appellant was a tenant in the suit premises is proven from the fact that: