JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below declaring the plaintiffs/respondents to be owners of the shops in dispute and further passing a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1100/- towards mesne profit against them.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter will initially be referred to as per the original nomenclature as given in the suit.

3. Brief matrix of the case is given as hereunder:-

Sh. Tara Chand who was father of the plaintiffs was owner of two shops shown with letters A B C D annexed with and fully detailed in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter to be mentioned as 'shops in dispute'). After his death, the plaintiffs being his legal heirs, became co-owners of the shops in dispute. It was pleaded that Sh. Tara Chand had inducted the defendant No.1 Des Raj as a tenant over the shops in dispute on payment of monthly rent @Rs.100/-. It was an oral monthly tenancy. On 24.02.1987, the plaintiffs issued registered notice against the defendant No.1 calling upon him to pay the rent as due against him and also called upon him to hand over vacant possession of the shops in dispute by terminating his tenancy over the same with effect from March 1987. The defendant No.1 failed to pay either the arrears of the rent due against him for the period from 01.05.1986 to 31.03.1987 @Rs.100/- per month or to hand over the vacant possession of the shops in dispute. He sent reply to the notice on 01.04.1987 thereby denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendants No.2 & 3 on the other hand asserted to be in possession of the shops in dispute through defendant No.1. The plaintiffs while making an alternative submission to the effect that the defendants had no right to retain possession of the shops in dispute even if the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had not been proved, prayed for grant of relief of possession and recovery of arrears of rent.

4. The defendant No.1 appeared in response to the notice and filed written statement. While denying the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between Tara Chand and himself; it was asserted that the shops in dispute along with some other properties were joint between Tara Chand who was his real brother and himself and both of them had been jointly renting out the same to various tenants at different points of time till January 1959, when a settlement had been arrived at between themselves vide which the shops in dispute and some other properties had fallen to his share whereas Tara Chand was given other properties situated at Village Hajipur and Village Jugial (wherein the shops in dispute are situated). The defendant No.1 had become exclusive owner of the shops in dispute and had been letting them out and had been exclusively enjoying the rents and profits derived therefrom. On 04.06.1976, a memorandum of settlement was reduced into writing between Sh. Tara Chand and himself in terms of settlement earlier arrived at in January 1959. It was submitted that the defendant No.2 was tenant in one of the shops in dispute under him whereas the defendant No.3 also was a tenant in the second disputed shop but he had vacated it and handed over the same to the defendant No.1 and as such defendant No.3 had no interest in the suit. An alternative plea that he had become owner of the shops in dispute by way of adverse possession had also been taken and dismissal of suit had been prayed for.

5. The defendant No.2 filed written statement submitting that he was inducted as a tenant over one of the shops in dispute by the defendant No.1 about two years back on payment of rent @Rs.200/- per month.

6. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of defendant No.1 wherein the pleas taken in the written statement were controverted whereas those of the plaint were reiterated. On the pleadings of th