SUNIL KUMAR & ORS Vs. JHOMPHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 98-P/04, vide which learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal so filed by the present appellants upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 2, Palampur in Civil Suit No. 93/2000 dated 30.06.2004, whereby learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff therein, in the following terms:-

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent/plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed suit for possession of shop comprised in Khata No. 637 min, Khatoni No. 1250, Khasra No. 2675 measuring 0-00-28 Hects. situated in Mohal Ghuggar Ram Chowk, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, i.e. suit premises, by way of ejectment of the defendants on the ground that the shop in issue was rented out to late Narayan Bos, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of other defendants by the plaintiff, who was owner of the same. According to the plaintiff, his son was unemployed and thus the shop was required for his use. Further, as per the plaintiff, defendants were serving in different departments and the shop in fact was locked since the death of Narayan Bos. Plaintiff served a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and terminated the tenancy of the defendants. Notice was duly received by defendant No. 5 but the other defendants refused to receive the same. It was further case of the plaintiff that the defendants were not paying rent, which was due from the defendants since January, 1998. On these basis, he had prayed for decree of possession of the suit premises by ejectment of the defendants.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants, who inter alia, took the stand that Narayaan Bos was not a tenant in the shop of the plaintiff and that it were defendants No. 1 to 4 who were in possession of the shop which was constructed by the predecessor-in-interest of the replying defendants more than 30 years ago. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had nothing to do with the suit premises and he had no right, title or interest over the same as defendants were not his tenants. According to the defendants, the claim of the plaintiff was false and frivolous.