SHEELA DEVI Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 23/8/2022, passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., vide which the appeal filed by the appellant (defendant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking possession of the suit land mentioned in para-1 of the plaint. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land. Hilnu, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs constructed a house on Khasra No. 297/2 (new Khasra No. 2345/297). The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs inducted the defendant as a tenant. The suit land with the house was sold by Hilnu son of Khwaja to the plaintiffs. The defendant was paying rent @ ?500/- per month to the plaintiffs till June 1998. The defendant filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul Spiti, at Kullu. The defendant filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kullu which was dismissed. The plaintiffs are owners in possession as per the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul Spiti, at Kullu. The defendant has not paid any rent since June 1998. The plaintiffs served a notice on 11. 7.2007 demanding the rent. A notice terminating the tenancy was also issued on 7/8/2007; however, these notices were returned un-served. The plaintiffs issued a fresh notice on 9/12/2012, which was served upon the defendants on 13/12/2012. The defendant failed to vacate the house or pay the arrears of rent. Hence, the suit was filed for seeking the relief, mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing a written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and cause of action, the plaintiffs having suppressed the material facts from the Court and the plaintiffs being estopped by their acts and conducts to file the civil suit. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that Hilnu, the previous owner of the suit land, had filed a civil suit for injunction against the defendant and her husband. The suit was compromised between the parties. Hilnu relinquished 2-10 bighas of land in favour of the defendant. The defendant and her husband agreed not to interfere with the remaining part of the suit land. Hilnu executed a Sale Deed No. 902, dtd. 28/5/1992 in favour of the defendant. The defendant could not appear before the Revenue Authorities and mutation no. 3926 based on the sale deed was rejected. The defendant had filed a civil suit for injunction and the outcome of the civil suit does not affect the present suit. The defendant is the owner and not liable to pay any rent or mesne profit. The defendant and her family members have resided in the house since 1982. She was also paying the house tax. The suit was filed without any basis. Hence, it was prayed that the same be dismissed.