SURINDER PAL Vs. SUDESH KUMARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment of the trial Court dated 23.04.2015 and that of lower appellate Court dated 30.05.2019 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the shop, has been decreed. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that plaintiff No. 1-wife of Tarsem Lal had purchased the shop from original owner Krishna Devi vide sale deed dated 03.02.1981. Darshan Lal was also co-owner alongwith plaintiff No. 1 and he sold his half share to plaintiff No. 2 Atul Sharma through sale deed dated 13.11.2009. The above two sale deeds have not been disputed by the defendant. The defendant being relative of the plaintiffs, took the shop in question from the plaintiffs as licensee. Thereafter the license of the defendant was revoked by the plaintiffs orally and subsequently the plaintiffs also got served a legal notice upon the defendant through his counsel Sh. Tejwant Singh, Advocate vide which the license of the defendant was terminated on 29.07.2011 and hence the suit was filed. The defendant, after notice, filed a written statement taking the plea that he is a tenant of the shop in question at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- per month from the year 1986 and since then the defendant is in possession of the said shop and is doing practice as Unani Vaid. He has made a payment of the agreed rent upto July 2011 but the plaintiffs refused to accept the rent and a money order was sent to the plaintiffs by defendant regarding the payment of rent of August 2011 on 26.08.2011 but the plaintiffs have refused to accept the money order. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 26.11.2012:-