RAEES AHMAD Vs. DAYAWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.

(2.) The plaintiff claims that he was tenant in possession of a small area apart from a shop and he has been forcibly dispossessed from small area on 25/10/1997. The plaintiff also claims that he got registered a DDR No.24 dtd. 26/10/1997, complaining about his forcible dispossession which was ultimately registered as a criminal case. He further pleaded that he filed a petition under Ss. 10 and 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act of 1949) but withdrew the same in the year 2007. Hence, plaintiff prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction be passed in his favour, restoring the possession of the premises from where he was forcibly dispossessed.

(3.) The defendant-owner contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff is a tenant in possession of the shop which has been depicted in the lay out plan with characters as 'ABCD'. It was further pleaded that in a criminal case, defendant has been acquitted by the court. It was further pleaded that the agreement to sell as set up by the plaintiff with respect to the main shop, which is depicted in the lay out plan with characters as 'ABCD', is also result of coercion because of police pressure.