The plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the sale deed and the dimensions of the property mentioned in the sale deed did not correspond to the dimensions shown in the site plan. The court held that the plaintiffs' evidence was weak and did not support their case. The court also found that the presumption of a document being 30 years old did not apply in this case. Therefore, the court dismissed the suit.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Defendant No.2 is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal recorded by the lower Appellate Court in a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendants from shop shown by words 'ABCD' filed by the plaintiffs. The shop was pleaded with defined configurations and was shown with red colour in the site plan.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendants from the shop shown by words 'ABCD' with defined configurations and shown in red colour in the site plan was filed by the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the shop was let out to the defendants on tenancy at will by Harbans Lal predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs initially at the monthly rent of Rs. 300/- about 25 years ago. The rent was increased with the passage of time and at the time of filing of the suit, the same was claimed to Rs. 600/- per month w.e.f. April 2011.

3. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that earlier Harbans Lal predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs used to collect rent. After the demise of Harbans Lal, the plaintiffs started collecting the rent from the defendants. Plaintiffs pleaded existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act were not applicable to the area. The tenancy was claimed to be a tenancy at will. Plaintiffs did not want to keep the defendant as a tenant in the shop and, therefore, they want to eject them as they wanted the shop for their own use. The shop was old and required renovation and structural changes. Plaintiffs issued notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and called upon the defendants to vacate the shop.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants No.1 & 2 on all counts. Defendant No.2 pleaded that father of the defendant had constructed the shop in dispute from his own income. The shop is situated in Khewat No.379/426, Khatauni No.525, Khasra Nos.45 and 46. Vasdev son of Mulkraj was the original owner of the land to the extent of half share in the revenue estate of village Dorangla, Hadbast No.175, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and the same was vacant land about more than 60 years ago. Father of defendant No.2 had constructed the shop, where he was running a karyana shop. After his demise, defendant No.2 came in possession of the said karyana shop as its owner. Construction of shop was more than 60 years old. Neither the plaintiffs, nor their father and nor the aforesaid Vasdev had ever interfered in the peaceful possession of defendant No.2. For the last ten years, relationship between the defendants was not cordial and filing of the suit by the plaintiffs was on account of connivance between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1.

5. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit against the answering defendant? OPD

5. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis joinder of the necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties? OPD

7. Whether no notice has ever been received by the answering defendant from the plaintiffs? OPD

8. Relief."

6. Both the parties led their respective evidence in order to prove their case.

7. The trial Court held that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 i.e. plaintiff No.1 and PW-2 Tilak Raj was not sufficient to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. Cross-examination of PW-1 would show that he never received any rent from the defendants, nor he ever visited the shop in question. The aforesaid admission made by PW-1 would show that he never received any rent from the defendant