SYED ABDUL MAJID Vs. VIJAY KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by defendant -appellant -appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The instant matter arises out of Title Suit No. 11 of 1981 (55 of 1986), which was filed by the sole plaintiff -respondent -respondent no. 1 for declaration that the suit premises, which is a shop on the ground floor of holding no. 226 situated in Mohulla Lal Bazar in the town of Bettiah (West Champaran) detailed in Schedule -I of the plaint belonged to the plaintiff as its exclusive owner and that the possession of the defendants was illegal and they were liable to be evicted from the suit premises and also for realization of damages and mesne profits.

(2.) THE aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bettiah by his judgment and decree dated 12.3.1986, which was challenged by the defendant -appellant in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1986. The said title appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge -II, West Champaran by judgment and decree dated 20.1.1988 setting aside judgment and decree of the trial court and remanding the matter to the trial court for deciding two issues relating to damages and non -joinder of M/s Chandra Brothers.

(3.) THE claim of plaintiff -respondent no. 1 is that he is the owner of the suit premises, which he leased out on rent to M/s Chandra Brothers, on whose behalf its then Manager Gopal Das Sinha executed an agreement on 15.8.1953. It is also claimed that subsequently on 10.12.1962 a fresh agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and M/s Chandra Brothers, on whose behalf its new Manager (defendant no. 1 -appellant) executed the agreement. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that on 2.1.1976 the sign board of M/s Chandra Brothers was replaced by the sign board of Light House and on enquiry the plaintiff learnt that M/s Chandra Brothers had left the suit premises, whereafter defendant no. 1 -appellant had started running his own business in the suit premises. Thus, it was claimed by the plaintiff that the tenancy of M/s Chandra Brothers stood automatically terminated, whereafter defendant no. 1 -appellant came in possession although he had no right to continue in occupation of the suit premises.