Tenancy rights persist despite property destruction; claims of tenancy surrender require substantial proof, as verbal agreements are recognized under law.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, First Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly ousting the plaintiff, dismantling the suit premises, described by the letters ABCDEFGH and obstructing the passage denoted by the letters EFLD mentioned in the head note of the plaint, situated in Village Chaproh, Chintpurni except in due course of law. A mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction put by them in front of the door and clear the passage denoted by the letters EFLD was also sought. It was asserted that the suit premises denoted by the letters ABCDEFGH comprise one room with a verandah whose roofs are covered with corrugated sheets. The portion CDLN is covered by a tarpaulin. The passage denoted by letter EFLD leads from the stairs to the verandah. These premises were in the possession of the predecessors-in-interest of plaintiff as a tenant for 25 years. He has kept his various articles inside the premises. The rent of the premises was fixed as Rs. 150/- per annum, which was enhanced to Rs. 1200/- per annum. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff paid the rent till 1988. Predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff’s son Parveen Kumar is running a manyari shop with defendant No.5 in partnership for eight years. The relationship between defendant No.5 and Parveen Kumar became strained due to the misappropriation of the accounts. Defendant No.5 instigated other defendants, and they extended illegal threats of forcibly ousting the plaintiff, dismantling the premises and obstructing the passage. They attempted to remove the articles on 27.12.1989 and caused damage of Rs. 7,000/-. The matter was reported to the police, and FIR No.158/89 was registered. The defendants continued with their threats. Hence, a suit was filed before the learned Trial Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by defendants No.1 to 3 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus standi and cause of action, the plaintiffs being estopped by their act and conduct to file the suit, and the suit being bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that defendants No.1 and 3 are joint owners of the premises to the extent of a half share each. Defendant No.2 is the son of Defendant No.1. The room was rented to Jagdish Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, for Rs. 150/- per annum. This rent was enhanced to Rs. 1200/- per annum. The room was to be used as a store, and the entrance for the room was provided from the back door opening towards Chintpurni Talwara road. Jagdish Ram remained in possession of the room till 1987, and he surrendered his possession to the owners because the premises were in a dilapidated condition and he had constructed a building of about 30 ro