MANSA RAM Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent/defendant despite service is not present, hence, proceeded against ex parte.

(2.) THE appellant is the plaintiff who filed a suit for damages on the allegations that he since 26.8.1993 was in possession as tenant of building known as Rawat Dhabha consisting hotel at Shalaghat, Pargana Rohanj, Tehsil Arki, District Solan under an agreement written and executed by the defendant/respondent. On 6.1.1994 the defendant/respondent interfered with the possession of the plaintiff with the motive to dispossess the plaintiff/appellant from the aforesaid premises which resulted in filing the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant/respondent dispossessed the plaintiff/appellant and on the direction of the Court the possession was redelivered to the plaintiff/appellant on 2.4.1994 through the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court.

(3.) THE defendant/respondent contested the suit by raising preliminary objections that the suit was barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cause of action, valuation, estoppel etc. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff/appellant was tenant of the defendant/respondent under an agreement but it was submitted that the defendant/respondent made statement in the Court to return back the possession to the plaintiff/appellant of his own and also requested the Court to appoint Local Commissioner at the time of delivering the possession because the plaintiff/appellant was not trustworthy person and could have come with new false story against the defendant/respondent. According to him, the plaintiff/appellant was never dispossessed from the Dhaba but in fact vacated the same of his own as this Dhaba was running in loss. The plaintiff/appellant had taken back entire rented out premises and now alleging that entire premises was not delivered to him at the time re -induction whereas an agreement to this effect was prepared on the spot. In fact the plaintiff/appellant had not paid the rent for the past four months and therefore, with the intention of not paying arrears of rent pertaining to the winter session, he had filed a false suit. Lastly, it was denied that the defendant/respondent had taken any item belonging to hotel as mentioned in the plaint and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.