KULDEEP SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals at the instance of the contesting defendant, though arise out of two separate judgments, both dated 29.03.2006, of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, yet the fact remains that the appeals before the learned first appellate court arose from a single judgment dated 22.11.2001, of the learned Sub Judge (IV ), Shimla, whereby the suit for grant of perpetual prohibitory injunction filed by the contesting respondent No. 1 herein, Shri Bhupinder Singh, as plaintiff, against Shri Kuldeep Singh and Shri Bachitter Singh, the appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 herein, being the contesting defendant and proforma defendant, respectively, was decreed for the following relief vide para 16 of the judgment dated 22.11.2001, rendered by the learned trial court: 16. While deciding the issues, supra, suit of the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant No. 1 from claiming any right, title or interest in the suit premises i.e. two quarters in building known as Lal Quarters, Lower Kaithu, Shimla succeeds and the same is accordingly decreed, with costs. Let the decree sheet be prepared accordingly. -

(2.) SHORN of details, facts of the case are that the demised premises, comprising of two residential quarters forming part of Lal Cottage, Lower Kaithu, Shimla belong to one Shri Jatinder Kumar. As per the case setup by the plaintiff, these were let out by the said Shri Jatinder Kumar in favour of the plaintiff's father, proforma defendant No. 2, Shri Bachitter Singh, in the year 1960. The plaintiff being son of the tenant, Shri Bachitter Singh, was also residing with him in the demised premises. According to the plaintiff, the contesting defendant, Shri Kuldeep Singh, is his friend and at times he used to stay with him in the demised premises. This process started in the year 1985 -86. Later on, somewhere in the year 1994, the contesting defendant again requested the plaintiff to permit him to stay in the demised premises, as according to him someone in his relationship was sick and he wanted to get him checked up at Shimla. The plaintiff acceded to the request of the contesting defendant and permitted him to stay in the demised premises with the clear understanding that since his parents were to come to Shimla in mid December, 1994, he will have to vacate the demised premises well before that.

(3.) THE contesting defendant laid challenge to the suit on legal objections regarding non -joinder of necessary parties, locus -standi, maintainability, estoppel and the suit being false and frivolous. On merits, precisely the case setup by the contesting defendant was that somewhere in the middle of 1987, the plaintiff and the proforma defendant had surrendered the tenancy in respect of the demised premises in his favour on payment of Rs. 10,000/ -.