NAND KISHORE Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.2 is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal recorded by the lower Appellate Court in a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendants from shop shown by words 'ABCD' filed by the plaintiffs. The shop was pleaded with defined configurations and was shown with red colour in the site plan.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendants from the shop shown by words 'ABCD' with defined configurations and shown in red colour in the site plan was filed by the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the shop was let out to the defendants on tenancy at will by Harbans Lal predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs initially at the monthly rent of Rs.300/- about 25 years ago. The rent was increased with the passage of time and at the time of filing of the suit, the same was claimed to Rs.600/- per month w.e.f. April 2011.

(3.) It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that earlier Harbans Lal predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs used to collect rent. After the demise of Harbans Lal, the plaintiffs started collecting the rent from the defendants. Plaintiffs pleaded existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act were not applicable to the area. The tenancy was claimed to be a tenancy at will. Plaintiffs did not want to keep the defendant as a tenant in the shop and, therefore, they want to eject them as they wanted the shop for their own use. The shop was old and required renovation and structural changes. Plaintiffs issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and called upon the defendants to vacate the shop.