BALAK RAM (SINCE DECEASED) Vs. DEVI SANDHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Looking to the nature of the order I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the issues in detail. Suffice it to state that the plaintiff deity through its Kardar filed a suit against the defendant for possession and recovery of Rs. 8,600.00 on the ground that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop in question which had been rented out in favour of the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.50.00 per month. The tenancy was created month to month as per the english calendar and the defendant had failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent. On 15.07.2000, the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff whereby he admitted that till 15.07.2000 he was liable to pay arrears to the tune of Rs. 7,000.00 and further undertook to pay the same in installments. The plaintiff bonafidely required the aforesaid shop for personal use and as such issued a registered notice dated 30.06.2002 under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy w.e.f. end of July, 2002. Despite notice, defendant failed to vacate the aforesaid shop and also failed to pay the arrears of rent. Hence the suit.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objection to the effect that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land, locus standi, valuation, maintainability, jurisdiction, suppression of material facts etc. were raised. On merits, it was averred that the deity is a juridical body and remaining allegation including the description of property were denied. It was further alleged that the suit land comprising Khasra No. 1472 is a Phati abadi owned and possessed by various right holders including the defendant from generation to generation and, therefore, the plaintiff was not the owner of the shop and as such there is no question of his being in arrears of rent. It was further stated that the defendant was owner in possession of the land measuring 0-2-0 bighas on the portion of the suit land and in the year 1970-71 had constructed khokha thereupon which was renovated in the year 1987-88 and a shop measuring 19' x 14' feet was then constructed in place of the khokha. It was maintained that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest over the suit property. Therefore, the suit be dismissed.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-