GOPAL KRISHEN Vs. PRITI BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil 2nd Appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 16-11-2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Udhampur in an appeal preferred by the present appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein against the judgment and decrees dated 4-9-2000 passed by the Munsiff, Udhampur. Briefly stating the facts as revealed from the impugned judgment are that, respondent 1 claiming herself to be the tenant in suit shop situated at Udhampur, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the present appellant and respondents 2 to 4 seeking protection of her possession and tenancy against forcible in- terference by the defendant. It was alleged that the shop in question was obtained by her on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-in the year 1982 and since then she is in possession of the same and carrying on business of manu- facture and sale of wooden furniture. It was also pleaded that the rent of the shop was enhanced to Rs. 150/- per month since April, 1988. The rent was being paid to Chanchla Devi as defendant-1, Gopal Sharma presently appellant usually remained out of Udhampur in connection with service. It was further pleaded that plaintiff has paid the rent from August, 1990 till ending March, 1991. Further allegations as contained in the plaint are that, while the suit shop remained closed for one and half month under the lock and key of the plaintiff, it was on 15-5-1991 husband of the plaintiff lodged report in the Police Station and defendants were forced to remove their lock from the suit shop and the plaintiff again put her lock on and continues to be in possession.

(2.) The defendants on appearance, filed their written statements contesting the claim of the plaintiff, respondent-1 and claims to be in possession of the shop having been surrendered by Mr. Sohan Lal, husband of respondent-1 of his own in the year 1988 after the death of Mann Dei, the original land lady. It was also pleaded before the trial Court that the plaintiff thereafter tried to seek forcible re-entry in the suit shop. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) Parties led their respective evidence before the trial Court and on conclusion of the trial, the trial Court held both the issues 1 and 2 proved and consequently decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 4-9-2000 restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit shop unless and until the plaintiff is not evicted by following due course of law. While deciding Issues Nos. 1 and 2, the trial Court held that the tenancy of the plaintiff is established. It is also established that the defendants tried to evict the plaintiff from suit shop otherwise than due course of law. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be assailed before the learned District Judge, Udhampur in appeal preferred by the present appellant and respondents 2 and 3 jointly. The appellate Court while concurring with the findings and judgment of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal vide its judgment and decree dated 16-11-2002. This appeal is accordingly against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court.