USHA SONI Vs. LRS OF DEV KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-plaintiffs have preferred these two appeals against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th of April 2012, which was rendered in Civil Appeal Decree No. 02/2010 and 03/2010 by the Addl. District Judge, Merta (for short, 'learned first appellate Court') against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Merta (for short, 'learned trial Court'), which was passed in two cross suits filed by the rival parties bearing No. Civil Original Suit No.64 of 2001, and 100 of 2001 respectively. The learned trial Court consolidated both the cross suits and by its judgment and decree dated 12th of January 2010 decreed the suit of the respondent for arrears of rent and eviction and dismissed the suit of the appellant for perpetual injunction. The judgment aforesaid, which was rendered in both the civil suits, was assailed by the appellants before the learned first appellate Court by way of preferring two separate appeals and the learned appellate Court by the aforementioned impugned judgment and decree dismissed both of the appeals of the appellants. Now, being aggrieved from the common judgment on both the appeals, the appellants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC, by the aforesaid two appeals.

(2.) The facts apposite for the purpose of these appeals are that appellants filed a civil suit against the respondents before the learned trial Court for the relief of perpetual injunction, inter-alia, on the ground that they are tenants of the respondents in the disputed premises and the respondents be restrained from evicting them from the disputed premises without following due process of law. Responding to the said suit, the respondents-landlord filed counter claim interalia on the ground that the appellants have encroached over part of the premises which was not under their tenancy. To combat the attempt of the appellants, the respondents also laid a civil suit against the appellants for arrears of rent and eviction from the disputed premises. The learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and the rival parties were permitted to lead their evidence for substantiating their respective claims. In order to seek relief of perpetual injunction, the first appellant herself appeared in the witness box and examined 7 supporting witnesses. Besides that, on behalf of appellants, documentary evidence was also adduced and in all 10 documents were exhibited. For proving their case, the respondents also produced 8 witnesses and tendered 13 documents in evidence. There was a serious dispute between the contesting parties about the nature of tenancy and the dimensions of the rented premises. The learned trial Court, on evaluation of evidence and other materials on record, recorded a categorical finding on Issue No.1 that appellant Usha Soni was let out a shop as a tenant by the respondent-plaintiff and no other premises were let out and remained under occupation of appellants for their residence. Adverting to Issue No.4 & 5, the learned trial Court has found that the respondents have ably discharged their duties to prove both these issues and accordingly the learned trial Court recorded the finding that possession of the appellants on part of the premises is an illegal encroachment and accepted the counter claim. Similarly, Issue Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10 & 11 were also decided in favour of the respondents. The Issue No.2 & 3 pertaining to termination of tenancy of the appellant and consequential relief of possession of the rented premises was decided by the learned trial Court in favour of the respondent.

(3.) Being disgruntled with the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants preferred two appeals before the learned first appellate Court and the learned first appellate Court, examining the matter afresh, and evaluating the materials on record, fully concurred with the findings of the learned Court below and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.