SANTOSH MALHOTRA Vs. H.P.S.F.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 29 -S/1 of 1995 whereby the appeal of the Appellants -Plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as 'the Plaintiffs ') against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (IV), Shimla, had been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Plaintiffs instituted a suit against the Respondent -Defendant (hereafter referred to as 'the Defendant ') for permanent perpetual mandatory injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the premises comprising three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine on the Eastern side of the ground floor and a store in the basement of Bridge View and from dispossessing the Plaintiffs therefrom.

(3.) THE Defendant filed written statement -cum -counter claim wherein the status of the respective Plaintiffs qua the premises in suit and shifting of its Office to New Himrus Building have not been disputed. It is, however, claimed that despite shifting of the Office by the Defendant in November, 1983, the suit premises had been in its continuous occupation/legal possession till 22nd -23rd October, 1990, when the Plaintiffs illegally trespassed therein under the garb of status quo orders. It is further averred that the premises in suit were allotted to Onkar Singh, Manager of the Defendant in November, 1983, who occupied the same till June, 1985. Thereafter, the premises were allotted to K.C. Rana, another Manager of the Defendant, who remained in occupation of the premises till 20th October, 1990. On vacating the premises, said K.C. Rana handed over the keys to Hitender Sharma, DGM of the Defendant. The premises were then allotted to Ashok Kumar Arora on October 24,1990 and when he went to occupy the premises it was found that the passage leading to the premises was blocked by wooden planks and gunny bags containing sand and other material placed in the passage and outside the door of the premises. It was found that on vacation of the premises by K.C. Rana, Plaintiffs had unlawfully trespassed into the same and with a view to give legitimacy to their illegal act they instituted the present baseless and frivolous suit. The handing over of the possession of the premises by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs, as claimed in the plaint, has been denied though receipt of letter for vacation of the premises from the Plaintiffs is not disputed. Against these circumstances, the Defendant has claimed that the Plaintiffs being in unlawful possession of the premises, the possession thereof is liable to be restored to the Defendant. It is also claimed that the Corporation had paid the rent of the premises to the Plaintiffs up to November 30, 1990, therefore, there was no occasion to surrender the possession of the premises to the Plaintiffs before the said date nor it was surrendered. Hence, a counter claim for a decree for possession of the premises in favour of the Defendant has been laid with a further prayer for dismissal of the suit of the Plaintiffs.