ANIL SOOD Vs. PAWAN SAHANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit, cast under the provisions of Sec. 6, and, Sec. 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for possession of the suit premises, stood, dismissed by the learned trial Court, and, the plaintiff being aggrieved therefrom, has hence motioned this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of portion of the suit premises described, as, AEGHJLMCA, in, the rough site plan, appended with the plaint, existing over land as detailed in the plaint, situated in mauza Dehun, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is running a auto mobile parts shops, at Deonghat, since, the year 1970, in the suit premsies along with rented out premises described in the rough sketch plan attached with the plaint. In fact the predecessor of the plaintiff late Sh. Girdhari Lal was in possession of suit premises as he had taken the same on rent in the year 1970 from one late Sh. Lala Lekh Ram. The suit premises consisted of two shops, where he started the business of tyre retreading along with plaintiff and also installed a telephone number SOL 2537 and had also installed the electricity connected. IN this shop tyre retreading machine was installed and adjoining of the premises denoted by FBKDMLJF was used as a store for keeping raw material and finished product. In the year 1980, Sh. Girdhari Lal, with a view to accommodate his another son Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sood, carved out a small shop from the shop AEFJLMC denoted by EFJHG with the consent of the then landlords where the business of spare parts under the name and style of M/s R.K. Auto was commenced. The shop was connected to the parent shop through a passage denoted by JH in the rough plan. In the year 1989, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sood died and then Sh. Girdhari Lal and plaintiff started looking after the business of M/s R.K. Auto. In the year 1993, the health of Girdhari Lal Started deteriorating and as a result of the same, he was not able to attend the business property. Thus, he distributed the entire assets amongst his sons and business of M/s Unique Tyre and M/s R.K. Auto were allotted to the plaintiff, and, as such since, 1993, the plaintiff is owner of the said two businesses. After the death of late Sh. Girdhari Lal, in the year 1996, the plaintiff found it difficult to handle both the businesses and thereafter the business of M/s Unique Tyres was closed. The business of M/s R.K. Auto was being conducted in the entire premises, which was originally taken on rent by Sh. Girdhari Lal. The premises, in which the machinery was installed was now used as workshop as store of M/s R.K. Auto and adjoining shop was converted into the shop. As such, the business of M/s R.K. Auto used to be done in the portion shown as EFBKDMLJHGE as shown in the rough sketch. It is averred that late Sh. Girdhari Lal had employed one Sh. Sobha Singh, i.e. defendant No.4 to work in the M/s Unique Tryes, since the incpetion of the business, i.e. from 1970. After closure of business of M/s Unique Tyres Sh. Sobha Singh was rendered jobless. However, for consideration of the fact that Sobha Singh was his employee and worked for him, then the plaintiff and Sobha Singh entered into an oral agreement to the effect that the plaintiff shall allow Sh. Sobha Singh, i.e. defendant NO.4 to work as Mistri in the workshop in M/s R.K. Auto. This understanding was made that in the vent of repair works of M/s R.K. Auto, Sh. Sobha Singh received the entire labour charges and the payment of spare parts used in the job were to be taken by the plaintiff. It is averred that Sh. Sobha Singh was neither employee of Sh. R.K. Auto nor the plaintiff had handed over any part of premises to him and this arrangement was made only to co-operate and help and old employee. The defendants in Aug., 2007, had purchased the suit premises along with other property. After this purchase, defendant No.1 came to the shop of plaintiff and asked him to vacate the premises. However, defendant No.1 was informed by the plaintiff that he has only this business and he cannot vacate the premises immediately. The plaintiff has also offered that in case defendant No.1 was to increase the rent, then he has right for the same,but defendant No.1 became furious and threatened the plaintiff that he knows how to get the premises vacated. It is averred that defendant No.1 to 3 immediately contacted Sh. Sobha Ram, defendant NO.4 and hatched a conspiracy to illegally take possession of the suit premises. Pursuant to their illegal plan, on the intervening night of 16/17/10/2007, defendant No.1, Sobha Ram accompanied with few persons came to Deonghat, in the night and broke open the locks of the suit premises and removed the scrap and other material stored therein and put their locks and took illegal possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff came to know about this fact, when he came in the morning to his shop. Defendant No.1 then came around 11.30 a.m. and informed that the suit premises was handed over to me by defendant No.4, after receiving the premium (pagri). Thus, it is alleged that defendant No.1 illegally took possession of the suit premises, then the plaintiff reported the matter to the police of P.S. Solan, in this regard rapat No.10 of 17.10.2017 was entered. The police also visited the spot in the evening alongwith defendant No.1, but they failed to take any action. It is averred that prior to the dispossession of the plaintiff, it was possessed by him in the capacity of tenant. It is alleged that the defendants have illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from his lawful possession of the suit premises. It is averred that the plaintiff legally entitled to recover possession of the suit premises. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken the preliminary objections, qua, non joinder of necessary parties. It is averred that the alleged sketch plan is not as per position of the spot. It is denied that the shop was in possession of Sh. Sobha Singh and Sh. Sobha Singh had no connection with the plaintiff or his predecessor Sh. Girdhari Lal or with Sh. R.K. Sood, in any manner. It is categorically stated that the shop which was under the possession of Sh. Sobha Ram is separate and distinct identity having no relation with the plaintiff or his predecessor or with Sh. R.K. Sood. Sh. Sobha Singh was separate tenant and had been independently occupying the shop as tenant under the original landlord from whom, the defendant have purchased the property. It is averred that the plaintiff by drawing a false rough plan is trying to intermingle the facts, so as to claim the possession of the shop, which was under the possession of defendant No.4 and now in possession of defendants. It is denied that at any point of time the alleged small shop denoted by letter EFJHG was carved out by the plaintiff or his predecessor with or without the permission of original landlords. It is averred that the location of the walls, doors, type of construction, nature of premises as is existing today is the original shape from the very beginning and alteration whatsoever has been done on the spot by the plaintiff. It is averred that to run particular business under particular name and style may be as M/s Unique Tyres or M/s R.K. Auto has nothing to do with the shop, which is now in the possession of the defendants. The distributing of business by Sh. Girdhari Lal was his own affair, but has no right to distribute the tenancy right more particularly to have claim with regard to the shop, which was never under his possession. It is denied that Sh. Sobha Singh was an employee of Sh. Girdahri Lal. It is denied that there was any oral agreement between the plaintiff and Sh. Sobha Singh. It is reiterated that Sh. Sobha Singh was independent and was in possession of the shop as separate and distinct identity as lawful tenant of original owners. The keys of the suit premises always remains with Sh. Sobha Singh and he used to open the same without any interference from any person including the plaintiff. It is admitted that the defendants No.1 to 3 have purchased the property. It is denied that at any point of time any conversation with regard to vacation of the premises took place with the plaintiff. Since, no conversation ever took place with regard to the vacation of premises, therefore, the question of any threat does not arise. Defendants No.1 to 3 had filed the eviction petition against defendant No.4 Sh. Sobha Singh and a suit for injunction was also filed, wherein, Sh. Sobha Singh was also a party. When Sh. Sobha Singh came to know about this litigation, then he approached the defendant and requested for settlement. As per amicable settlement Sh. Sobha Singh delivered the vacant possession of the suit premises to defendants No.1 to 3. The keys of the shop were with Sh. Sobha Singh, who took out his goods, tools etc., and vacated the same and handed over the keys to defendants No.1 to 3 on the spot. It is denied that defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 accompanied with few persons and came to Deonghat broken open the locks of the suit premises as alleged. It is averred that since the plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed shop, hence, there is no question of dispossession of the plaintiff. It is averred that the possession of defendants No.1 to 3 is lawful and valid and based upon the title.