LAWS(HPH)-2012-4-74

PAWAN KUMAR Vs. PALAMPUR ROTARY EYE FOUNDATION

Decided On April 03, 2012
PAWAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
The Palampur Rotary Eye Foundation, Rotary Eye Hospital, Palampur, Kangra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala (HP) in Civil Appeal No. 11-P/XIII-2011. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for convenience sake) had filed a suit for possession of shop No. 25 bounded by Shop No. 20 in the North, Hospital Building in the South, road in the East and corridor of the Hospital Building in West in Block of Mela Mal Sood, Rotary Eye Hospital Building, existing on land comprised in Khata No. 145, Khatauni No. 262, Khasra Nos. 170, 171, measuring 0-31-36 hects, situated at Mohal and Mouza Banghiar (Maranda), Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra (H.P.). It is pleaded that the plaintiff is owner of shop No. 25. The shop is in possession of appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 535/-. The tenancy commences from 1st day of each calendar month. It is further averred that the defendant has not paid the rent for the month of December 2008 without any reasonable cause. It is further averred that the plaintiff in its meeting held on 30.12.2006 had decided to demolish the block of the building and to reconstruct the same in order to cater the increasing demand of public. Plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the premises. However, he did not accede to the same. A notice was served upon the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute. It is in these circumstances that the suit was filed for possession.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, Shri Dile Ram (PW-1) was not competent to file the suit. It is admitted that monthly rent was Rs. 535/-. However, it is pleaded that the tenancy of the defendant was permanent in nature. He was ready and willing to pay rent, but the plaintiff refused to receive the same. It is further pleaded that defendant has supplied food to the patients and plaintiff has not yet made payment to defendant to the tune of Rs. 12500/-. It was also pleaded that in the meeting dated 30.12.2006, it was never discussed by Governing Body to demolish the shop.

(3.) Replication was filed by the plaintiff. The issues were framed on 13.07.2009. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Palampur, District Kangra (H.P.) partly decreed the suit. A decree for recovery of Rs. 535/- on account of arrears of rent for the month of December, 2008 was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. However, suit of the plaintiff for possession was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before learned District Judge Kangra Division at Dharamshala (HP) against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Palampur. The first appellate Court partly accepted the appeal on 30.09.2011 and decreed the suit for possession of shop No. 25. It was also held that the possession of defendant over the disputed shop was illegal after 31.12.2008. The judgment of the trial Court was modified to this extent. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.