The principles of estoppel and forfeiture were crucial in determining the rights of the parties in the lease dispute.

1. The Civil First Appeal on hand is directed against judgment dated 29.10.2001 passed by District Judge Pulwama in suit titled Ahmadullah Mir and others v. Abdul Rashid Mir and others (file no. 4-numbri) whereby learned Trial Judge decreed the suit and directed the defendants, appellants before the court, to be evicted from the suit premises and its vacant possession to be handed over to the plaintiffs — respondents in the present appeal — within a month from the date of judgment and also to pay Rs. 400 as arrears of rent from Feb 1987 till 31st Jan 1988 and at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from 1st. Feb 1988 till the possession was so handed over. -

2. To understand the controversy involved, it would be profitable to have an overview of facts discernable from record.

3. The respondents on 6th June 1992 commenced a suit for ejectment in respect of a shed measuring 35'x21' bearing survey no. 1412 situated on Pulwama-Srinagar road at Pulwama (hereafter referred to as suit property), and recovery of Rs. 15,800

y as arrears of the rent. The respondents also prayed for a permanent injunction decree restraining the appellants from making any change in the nature or user of the suit property.

4. The respondents' case was that that they at the request of appellants leased out the suit property as owners in possession thereof to the appellants on a rent of R? 400 per month for one year from 1st. Feb 1987 to 31st Jan 1988 and agreed to renew the lease on the expiry of the initial term. It was pleaded that the appellants though under an obligation not to violate any of the conditions set out in the lease deed, failed to pay the rent to the respondents for the lease period and also avoided to pay the charges on account of user of the suit property beyond the period of lease. The respondents' case was that the appellants were in illegal possession of the suit property after the lease came to an end on 1st. Feb 1988 and that despite a notice served on the appellants whereby the lease was determined, the appellants avoided to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the respondents and also to pay Rs. 15,800 payable on account of rent and user of the suit premises after the lease period to the respondents. The respondents on the strength of the grounds urged in the plaint sought the reliefs set out in the concluding para of the plaint. The appellants in their written statement, refuting the case set up by the respondents denied to be tenants of the suit property or to have ever executed any document in favour of the respondents in respect of the suit property. The appellants instead claimed title, hostile to the title claimed by the respondents and insisted that as they were in continuous and Uninterrupted possession of the suit property since 1957 to the knowledge of the respondents, their possession was adverse and had ripened into ownership. The appellants claiming to be owners of the suit property in their own right denied their liability to pay any rent to the respondents. It was also denied that the respondents had any cause of action to file the suit or the court had jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the suit.

5. The trial court on perusal of the pleadings settled following issues:

1. Whether the demised premises have been leased out by the plaintiff in favour of defendant from 1st. Feb. 1987 on monthly rental of Rs. 400? OPP

2. Whether the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed by not paying the rent till the institution of the suit and by not the lease deed while enhancing the premium of rent? OPP

3. Whether the defendant is illegally holding the possession of the demised premises from 1988 till date despite a notice issued to him by the plaintiff whereby the lease has been determined? OPP

4. Whether the demised premises are required by the plaintiff for bona fide personal necessity? OPP

5. Whether the defendant owes Rs. 4,800 by way of arrears of rent for the year 1987 up to ending Jan. 1988

Click Here to Read the rest of this document