MANJIT SINGH Vs. SMT. CHITER LEKHA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 06.12.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 17 -N/13 of 2012. 'Key facts' necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondents -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs' for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit for recovery of possession of shops No. 1 and 2 built upon the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 191/295, Khasra No. 420/358, measuring 0 -10 bighas, situated at Village and Post Office Dhaula Kuan, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. against the appellant -defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' for the sake of convenience). According to the plaintiffs, they are joint owners of the land and the property built upon Khasra No. 420/358, measuring 0 -10 bighas, situated at Mauza Dhaula Kuan, Pargana Khol, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. The suit premises have been rented out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.1800/ -. The defendant took undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs and illegally, un -authorizedly and without their consent and permission, raised a Tandoor in the vacant space of the plaintiffs. A number of empty liquor bottles were found scattered in the vacant land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs objected to the nuisance created by the defendant. The plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the defendant by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, dated 26.04.2010. Notice was received by the defendant. He sent a reply to the same. According to the notice, the tenancy stood terminated w.e.f. midnight of May 31, 2010. The defendant was legally bound to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises and the plaintiffs were legally entitled for the possession of the suit premises as well as mesne profits w.e.f. 01.06.2010.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant the notice under Section 106 of the Act was not issued in accordance with law. The plaintiffs have received the rent from the defendant up to August, 2010, which tantamount to creation of fresh tenancy. It was admitted by the defendant that the suit premises were owned by the plaintiffs and the same have been rented out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1800/ -. According to him, the plaintiffs did not raise any objection to the Tandoor installed by the defendant in front of the suit premises after the demise of their predecessor -in -interest till a dispute arose in the year 2009, which was settled amicably. The defendant has also lodged a complaint with the police against the plaintiffs.

(3.) THIS Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 22.05.2013: