KRISHAN KUMAR @ JOJJU Vs. SOMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is instituted against the impugned judgment dated 30.6.2015 rendered by learned District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 44/2014.

(2.) The key facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for possession of six rooms and toilet on the ground floor of the building known as "Ranbir Villa" comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.22 min/59, Khasra No.773, land measuring 00-01-10 hectares, situated at Mouza Kathlag, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for convenience sake). According to the plaintiff, she is recorded as owner of the suit property. She had purchased the suit property from one Ranjeet Singh, son of Puran Singh in the year 1971. She is regularly paying the municipal taxes. She is also recorded as owner of the suit property in the assessment register of Municipal Committee, Dalhousie. The defendant, who is real brother of her husband, was permitted to reside in four rooms and a bathroom on ground floor of the suit premises. The suit property has become old and dilapidated and is required to be reconstructed. According to her, the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Dalhousie, had already issued a letter to her for demolishing the building in the year 2009. The plaintiff also got issued a legal notice upon the defendant on 16.8.2010 terminating his licence and requesting him to hand over the vacant possession of the rooms and the bathroom within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice, failing which he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per day for the illegal use and occupation of the premises in question. The plaintiff also obtained a map and valuation report from the Architect. The defendant being a licensee has no right to remain in possession of the suit property after the termination of his licence.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant denied that the plaintiff is recorded owner of the suit property. According to him, the suit property is owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh and Municipal Committee, Dalhousie is beneficiary trustee of the same. It was rented out to various tenants including the defendant by Municipal Committee, Dalhousie. He is regularly paying the rent for a portion of the suit property to the Municipal Committee, Dalhousie. The alleged sale deed executed by Ranjeet Singh in favour of the plaintiff is not binding upon the rights of the defendant because said Ranjeet Singh was not competent to sell the property in question as it was owned by the State of H.P. The plaintiff has no right to terminate the tenancy of defendant as neither she has issued any licence to defendant nor she is competent to do so.