SIRI KANT Vs. SHRI DHARAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 18.05.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in RBT Civil Appeal No. 139-G/10/08.

(2.) 'Key facts' necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit for possession and also for recovery of Rs. 900.00 against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' for the sake of convenience), on the grounds that he is owner of a shopping complex consisting of three shops over the land comprised in Khata No. 181 min, Khatauni No. 234, Khasra No. 250, area 0-01-81 hectares, situated at Mohal and Mauza Dhaliara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. The shop marked as 'ABCD' in the site plan was given to defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 300.00. The tenancy of the defendant was monthly. He required the shop for his own use. Consequently, the plaintiff served a legal notice, dated 10.08.2005 upon the defendant to terminate the tenancy and the defendant was required to vacate the premises on 30.09.2005. The notice was duly received by the defendant, but he did not vacate the shop. The defendant did not pay rent in the month of July. The plaintiff also prayed for the mesne profits for the months of Aug. and Sept., 2005 to the tune of Rs. 600.00 and total recovery amount of Rs. 900.00 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant did not dispute that he was tenant of the shop in dispute. However, he has stated that his tenancy was on permanent lease @ Rs. 1200.00 per year. It was agreed upon by the parties that the defendant would pay Rs. 30,000.00 to the plaintiff and then the defendant would not be evicted from the shop in question. Consequently, the defendant paid Rs. 30,000.00 to the plaintiff. The defendant also paid rent for three years to the tune of Rs. 3600.00. An agreement was entered into in 1978 and in 1979. The defendant installed electricity in the shop in question by incurring huge expenditure.