MOHAMAD TARIQ MIR Vs. GHULAM QADIR BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Ghulam Qadir Bhat-respondent herein on 29.11.2006 filed a suit for mandatory injunction decree, commanding the petitioner-defendant in the suit to vacate and handover the possession of shop No. 3 situated at General Bus Stand Anantnag, to the respondent. The respondent's case before the trail Court was that possession of the suit shop was handed over to the petitioner under Licence Deed executed on 27.12.2005 on payment of Licence fee of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner, it was pleaded, was to hold possession of suit shop as a Licensee from 01.10.2005 to 30.09.2006 and under a contractual obligation to handover its possession to the respondent at the end of licence period. The respondent's case was that though the licence period was over and the petitioner asked to handover possession of the suit shop to the respondent, the petitioner avoided to vacate the suit shop and handover its possession to the respondent, constraining him to file the suit.

(2.) The petitioner in his written statement filed on 09.07.2007, admitted the respondent to be rightful owner of the suit shop and also admitted that the petitioner entered into possession of the said shop under Licence Deed dated 27th December 2005. The petitioner, admitted that the Licence Deed expired on 03.09.2006. The petitioner however, claimed that after the Licence Deed came to an end the petitioner approached the respondent with the request to allow the petitioner to continue in possession of the suit shop and execute a fresh Deed. It is pleaded, that the respondent in principle agreed to extension in occupation of the suit shop, but asked for enhancement of the rent. The case set up by the petitioner before the trial Court was that there was no dispute between the parties as regards petitioner's possession over the suit shop, though an agreement on quantum of rent was yet to be arrived at. The petitioner admitted to have received a notice from the respondent through his lawyer Sh. M.A. Parray, requiring him to vacate the premises, and that the legal notice was dispatched when the negotiations between the parties were going on. However it was insisted that the petitioner continued to have possession of the suit shop even after the notice period was over. The petitioner pleaded that respondent by his conduct had allowed the petitioner to continue as "tenant" of the suit shop on higher rent and that in terms of Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, lease in favour of the petitioner was taken to have been automatically renewed. The petitioner while claiming to be in possession of the suit shop signified his intention to pay rent to the respondent even at enhanced rate.

(3.) The petitioner a little less than a year after written statement was filed on 8.03.2008, filed an application for grant of leave to amend the written statement. It was pleaded that the Licence Deed, mention whereof was made in the plaint, was fake and forged. It was averred that the Licence Deed was intended by the parties to be a Rent Deed and that the scribe of the Licence Deed did not read over and explain its contents to the petitioner at the time of its execution, and petitioner was given to understand by the scribe that what was executed was rent deed. It was further pleaded, that the aforementioned facts were narrated to Shri Khursheed Ahamad Wani Advocate, at the time of filing of written statement, but Shri Wani did not set out facts in written statement. The petitioner also denied to have received legal notice from the respondent requiring him to vacate the suit shop. The petitioner in para 12 of his application, expressed his contention to withdraw the admissions made in written statement.