PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees concurrently passed by the learned Courts below, the defendant has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for ejectment and recovery against the defendant alleging therein that the plaintiff is owner of the shop existing on Khata No. 24 min, Khatauni No. 27 min, Khasra No. 521 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes measuring 0-00-32 HM situated in Village and Mauza Jassur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (HP) (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) as per family settlement. The suit premises was rented out to defendant on monthly rent of Rs.1500/- which was enhanced to Rs.1800/- in June 2011. The tenancy was monthly. The defendant stopped paying rent and quarreled with the plaintiff and as such, the matter was brought into the notice of Gram Panchayat, Jassur. The land over which the suit premises exists was on lease with the father of the plaintiff, who constructed two shops on the ground floor and house on the first floor. The other land owned by the plaintiff and his father on which shops have been constructed is existing adjacent to the suit premises. The lease period has expired. Out of total land measuring 0-00-64 HM in Khata No. 24 min measuring 0-00-40 HM has been purchased by the another tenant, who used to pay rent to Ramesh Chand, the brother of the plaintiff. In June 2011 the defendant failed to pay rent and on this, an application was moved to the police where a compromise was arrived at and the defendant agreed to pay the enhanced monthly rent of Rs.1800/- through one Rajinder Kumar to plaintiff. Despite undertaking, the defendant failed to pay the rent and even gave beatings to the wife of the plaintiff and tried to outrage her modesty. The plaintiff due to growing needs of the family himself intends to run a shop for his livelihood. A legal notice dated 20.7.2011 thereby terminating the tenancy was issued by the plaintiff, but despite notice the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and as such, his possession is that of a trespasser. The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1800/- per month as rent of 10 months from June 2011 to March 2012. The plaintiff is also entitled to mesne profit at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month from April 2012 till the vacant possession of the shop is delivered to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the lis by filing written statement. The defendant has taken preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable. On merits, the defendant admitted the tenancy, however, contended that the defendant stopped paying rent when the shop was sold on 04.07.2009. The shop was sold to Sanjeev Kumar. The defendant denied the remaining averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit.