RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A lable or the substance ? Which one of them determines the real nature of relationship between the parties to the instant lis, is the important question which requires determination by this Court. The aforesaid question has arisen in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances of this Regular Second Appeal filed under para 32 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948.

(2.) Late Dr. Dharam Singh, the father of the respondent was the original plaintiff. He died during the pendency of the suit and the respondent was substituted m his place as his legal heir. The original plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of vacant possession of the residential premises occupied by the appellant -original defendant and for recovery of Rs. 650 as arrears on account of use and occupation of the said premises. The aforesaid residential premises are situated in Bazar Paonta Sahib, Teh. Paonta Sahib District Sirmour (hereinafter referred to as the disputed premises).

(3.) The disputed premises constituting of four rooms in the upper storeyed formed part of the building belonging to late Dr. Dharam Singh. The entire building had been leased out to the State Bank of India, Paonta Sahib as tenant by the original owner and at that time the appellant was in occupation of the disputed premises as an employee, Manager of the said Bank, The State Bank of India then vacated the building on 4 -11 -1974 but when the original plaintiff wanted to take the possession of the entire building, the appellant requested him that since no accommodation for his residence was available in Paonta Bazar, he should be allowed to remain in the occupation of the disputed premises for some time as he is expecting a transfer from that place The appellant had cordial relations with Doctor Dharam .Singh, the original -plaintiff at the material time. Thus on the request so made to him (Late Dr. Dharam Singh) after seeking legal advice allowed the appellant to remain in occupation of the disputed premises for a period of one year purely as a licensee on a monthly license -fee of Rs. 150 pursuant to the terms and conditions of document unilaterally executed by the appellant on 6 -11 -1974 (Ex. PA), The appellant, however, failed to vacate the disputed premises on expiry of one year and also fell into arrears of licence -fee which resulted into the filing of the civil suit in the Court of the Senior sub Judge, Sirmour, Nahan, Himachai Pradesh on the ground that the appellant was in occupation of the disputed premises as a trespasser.