PARAMJEET SINGH & OTHERS Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein (for short "the plaintiff") for rendition of a decree, for possession, hence, stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by defendants Paramjit Singh, and, by Narinder Singh, the latter Court, dismissed, the appeal besides obviously upheld the trial Court's judgment and decree, hence, the instant appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff on 25.2002 had instituted a suit for possession against the appellants ( hereinafter referred to as "the defendants) in the Court below on the allegations that the defendants had been owners of Shop No. 286 in Ward No. 4 in the area of Kotwali Bazar Dharamshala within the limits of Municipal Council, Dharamshala. The premises in dispute was 25"x13" and was situated in Khata/khatauni No. 168min/686min, khasra No. 827 as per jamabandi for the year 1995-96 of up Mahala and mauza, Dharamshala. The plaintiff had been tenant in possession of the premises in dispute under the defendants. Of late, the condition of the premises in dispute had not been good. The premises in dispute required extensive repairs. On 14.6.2000 the defendant No. 6 Shri Paramjit Singh and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement Ex.PW-2/A . As per the terms and conditions of this agreement, the plaintiff was to pay a sum of Rs.80, 000/- in two installments to defendant No.6. The defendant No. 6 was to carry out the repair of the premises in dispute within 45 days. After completion of repair work, defendant No. 6 was to hand back the possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.50, 000/- to defendant No. 6 on 14.6.2000. The plaintiff had vacated the premises in dispute and had handed over possession thereof to defendant No. 6 on 14.6.2000. The plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs. 30, 000/- to defendant No. 6. Defendant No.6 had carried out repair wok of the disputed premises. The plaintiff had requested defendant No. 6 to deliver the possession of the premises in dispute to him, but without any result. The plaintiff had issued notice (Ex.PW-2/B to defendant No.6 on 14.9.2001. The defendant No. 6 had received notice of the plaintiff, but had not owed his words.

(3.) In written-statement filed by defendants, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, jurisdiction, locus standi, misjoinder and cause of action. On merits, they admitted their ownership of the disputed premises. The plaintiff had been tenant-in-possession of the premises in dispute under the defendants. The condition of the premises in dispute had not been good. On 14.6.2000 the plaintiff had handed over the possession of the premises in dispute to defendant No.6. The plaintiff and defendant No. 6 had entered into an agreement Ex.PW2/A.