(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.5.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 25 -S/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) filed a suit against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for the sake of convenience) for possession of one room/shop measuring 5 x 20 feet, situated at main Junga Bazaar, Sub Tehsil Junga, District Shimla, H.P. According to the plaintiffs, late Sh. Budh Ram was owner in possession of single storeyed building consisting of three shops in front of main Junga Road situated in Khata No. 9, Khatauni No. 10, Khasras No. 86, 579 and 42. He died in the month of May 2006. He executed a Will dated 1.7.1988 in favour of the plaintiffs. Mutation No. 912 was attested in this regard. Late Budh Ram inducted the defendant as tenant in one room accommodation measuring 5 x 20 feet at the monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. The plaintiff after the death of Budh Ram requested the defendant to vacate the premises. The defendant agreed to vacate the premises by 30.6.2008. In this regard, an agreement, Ext. PW1/A was executed in the presence of the parties. However, despite undertaking having been given by the defendant, he did not vacate the premises. A legal notice dated 29.9.2008 was served upon the defendant by the plaintiffs regarding termination of his tenancy. He was again requested to vacate the premises on or before 31.10.2008, but the defendant failed to do so. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is also in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2006 to 30.9.2008.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant denied that Budh Ram executed any will in favour of the plaintiff on 1.7.1988. According to him, the will was forged. It was denied that the tenancy was created on month to month basis. It was also denied that Budh Ram intended to reconstruct the building and that the condition of the building had become dilapidated. According to him, the plaintiffs, their sons along with President, Vice President and Pankaj Sen came to his shop in the month of May 2008 and threatened him to vacate the premises and forcibly got his signatures on blank papers.
(3.) DEFENDANT feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 14.3.2012 filed an appeal before learned first appellate Court, who vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.