JUDGMENT

Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.

The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal against the judgment/decree dated 4.3.1992 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment/decree dated 14.5.1990 passed by Sub Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1-Sardari Lal Jain was inducted as a tenant in the shop situated in Hindi Bazar, Ludhiana by Amar Nath its previous owner at monthly rent of Rs. 17/- in the year 1956. Said shop was purchased by appellant-Dhawanti Devi from Amar Nath in 1965 and then the plaintiff started paying rent to her and the plaintiff regularly paid rent up to 31.3.1980. In the meantime, appellant-Dhanwanti Devi and respondent No.2-Parkash Chand conspired to get vacate the shop from the plaintiff. The appellant filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (in short, "the Rent Act") against the plaintiff on the ground of non-payment of rent and some other grounds on 15.4.1983. The rent petition remained pending up to 16.1.1985 wherein the plaintiff also filed an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The said petition was finally dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 16.1.1985. In the said rent petition, the plaintiff engaged counsel and paid fee to him and also incurred additional expenses of Rs. 10,00/- while appearing on each and every date of hearing. Thereafter, the appellant filed another rent petition against the plaintiff on 17.1.1985 without disclosing the fact regarding dismissal of previous rent petition. Even in the said rent petition, the plaintiff engaged counsel and also incurred additional expenses and the second rent petition was dismissed in default on 22.1.1985. Thereafter, another rent petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed wherein also, the plaintiff engaged counsel and incurred additional expenses. The appellant who earlier failed on 3 occasions filed another ejectment petition in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana wherein also, the plaintiff engaged counsel and incurred additional expenses. In this manner, the plaintiff suffered mental and physical agony on account of his malicious prosecution by the appellant and respondent No.2-Parkash Chand. The plaintiff claimed damages worth Rs. 8850/- on account of malicious prosecution from appellant-Dhanwanti Devi and respondent No.2-Parkash Chand.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants who filed joint written statement wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a good tenant and defaulted in paying the rent and thus, compelling the appellant to file different ejectment petitions; that it cannot be said that the appellant filed ejectment petitions without any proper and just cause. It was also prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : -

1. Whether the defendants prosecuted previous proceedings under the Rent Act against the plaintiff maliciously? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. To what amount, the plaintiff is entitled to recover as damages? OPP

5. Counsel for the plaintiff examined PW1-Surinder Kumar attorney of the plaintiff who produced documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P25, which are relating to the different rent petitions filed by the appellant against plaintiff.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the defendants examined DW1-Parkash Chand and DW2-Dhanwanti Devi.

7. After hearing counsel for the p