JAGAN NATH Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent herein, who is a tenant, for a declaration that he is a permanent lessee of the piece of land measuring 38-25 Hectres, entered in Khata No. 228 min, Khatauni No. 398 min, Khasra No. 695, situated in Civil Station, Dharamshala, with stipulation that he will build a shop at his own cost and to pay Rs. 70/- per annum as lease money to the defendant for use and occupation of the plot and he is entitled to remain in possession of the same. The second prayer in the suit was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff by trying to demolish the shop and by digging the foundations and the adjoining area of the shop and also for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the already dug area to its original position.

(2.) The appellant herein contested the suit on the ground that one Khushal Chand became a tenant of the building belonging to the appellant in 1952 and the respondent became a partner of said Khushal Chand in the tea business in 1956. According to the appellant it was only Khushal chand who was the tenant and the respondent was never his tenant. It is also the case of the appellant that after the death of Khushal Chand in July 1976, the respondent paid rent for six months and thereafter stopped paying rent. It is the case of the appellant that a sum of Rs. 135/- per mensem was being paid as rent.

(3.) The trial court held that the case of the appellant was not proved and that there was no evidence to prove the ownership of the building being with the appellant. It is also held that the case of the appellant that respondent became a partner of Khushal Chand and became a tenant only after the death of Khushal Chand was falsified by the fact that admittedly in 1954 the appellant gave consent to the respondent for installing the electricity connection in the building in his own name. The trial Court has also found that the appellant has received rent from the respondent for a period of six months from July, 1976. Therefore, the respondent was himself the tenant of the appellant and not Khushal Chand as contended by the appellant. Ultimately trial court passed a decree declaring the respondent to be a lessee on the suit land who has built a shop at his own costs and has paid the amount of lease money upto 31-10-1984 at the rate of Rs. 70/- per annum for the use and occupation of the plot and restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff or demolishing the shop by digging further foundation near the shop. The appellant was also directed by the decree to restore the already dug area which came quite near to the shop in question.