GIAN CHAND Vs. BALA SUNDARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of both appeals between the same parties and the subject matter of dispute is also similar.

(2.) WHILE this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.2003, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2001, decreeing thereby the suit filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, for possession of the suit premises, shown in site plan Ext. PB in red colour by letters 'ABCDEFGH' on the ground floor and 'ABCDEF' on the 1st floor, constructed over the land bearing Khasra No. 91, Khatauni No. 226/326, situated at Shilly Road, Solan, the connected appeal RSA No. 490/2006 against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 33 -S/13 of 2006, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2006 passed by learned trial Court in Civil Case No. 148/1 of 2004/2000, whereby suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000,000/ - on account of wrongful use and occupation of the same property was dismissed.

(3.) THE defendant established his business at Solan. He purchased a plot in the year 1982 in the name of his wife. He raised construction of a house thereon. He sold his flour mill which was installed in the premises in question and started scooter repairs in the year 1988. On 13.12.1990, he shifted to the building he constructed at Solan. On this the defendant was requested by the plaintiffs to vacate their premises, however, he failed to do so immediately and rather assured them to vacate the same within two years. When Shri Dayal Prasad husband of plaintiff No. 1 asked the defendant to vacate the premises in question on 31.8.1992, he assaulted him. A report was lodged against him in Police Station, Solan. Instead of handing over the vacant possession of the premises in question, the defendant claimed that the same was in his possession in the capacity of tenant. According to the plaintiffs since the defendant was never inducted as tenant in the premises in question and as he failed to vacate the same despite repeated requests and even on the intervention of the near relations, therefore, they served him with notice Ext. PW 1/C. He, however, failed to vacate the same despite the service of notice also, hence the suit for a direction mandatory in nature to the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the plaintiffs