RAMSWAROOP Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the appellants -plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment & decree dated 04.03.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge Bandikui, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil First Appeal No. 03/2012, whereby the appellate court has partly allowed the said appeal against the judgment & decree dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sikrai, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No. 28/08.

(2.) IT appears that the appellants -plaintiffs had filed the suit against the respondent -defendant seeking recovery of rent of Rs. 17,500/ - from the respondent, and seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from causing any interference in the possession of the appellants of the suit property, which was earlier let out to the respondent. As per the case of the appellants -plaintiffs, the respondent was not paying the rent since many years, and when the appellants demanded the rent, the respondent started quarreling with the appellants. Thereafter, with the intervention of the Panchas, the respondent had handed over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the appellants on 25.10.2008 and had agreed to pay Rs. 17500/ - towards rent upto 31.10.2008. However, the respondent thereafter did not pay the said arrears of rent and he tried to obstruct the possession of the appellants and therefore the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the respondent -defendant by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending inter alia that the respondent was paying the rent regularly, however the appellants had forcibly taken the possession by putting lock on the suit shop, when the respondent was out of town.

(3.) IT is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Bheem Sain Bairwa for the appellants that the first appellate court had failed to appreciate the fact that possession of the suit shop was already handed over by the respondent to the appellants in presence of Panchas and had also agreed to pay the arrears of rent. According to him, the appellants being the owners and in possession of the suit shop, were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent -defendant.