RAM LAL Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby his suit for possession was dismissed.

(2.) IT is contended by the appellant that the plaintiff's predecessor-in- interest Parvati executed a registered lease deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 29.9.1982 for a period of 20 years. By virtue of the Civil Court decree dated 20.7.1991, the land measuring 35 kanals 12 marlas i.e. the subject matter of lease, was transferred in favour of the plaintiff. It is, thus, contended that the lease period has expired on 29.9.2002 and, therefore, the possession of the defendant is illegal, unauthorized and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the same. The defendants have taken up a stand that defendant No. 1 is tenant on fixed Chakota and defendant No. 3 as tenant paying 1/3rd batai and, thus, said defendants cannot be ejected except after obtaining the ejectment order from the competent authority.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that after the expiry of the lease period, the possession of the tenant is that of an unauthorized occupant and, thus, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to grant a decree for possession. Reference is made to the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as "Roshan @ Roshan Lal v. The Secretary, Government of Haryana, 1998(4) RCR(Civil) 108 : 1998(3) PLR 651" and Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported as "Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(1) RCR(Civil) 360 : 1998(3) PLR 785" and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported as "Shri Raja Durga Singh of Solon v. Tholu and others, AIR 1963 SC 361".