JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. This is defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby while allowing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the house (fully described in the plaint) situated in village Atta, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as `the suit property’). Recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,06,500/- for the period July, 2011 to May, 2017 along with interest @ 12% p.a. was also sought. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his attorney, agent or any associate etc., from changing the nature or making any alteration to the suit property, was also sought.

3.1 It was claimed that the plaintiff, who was residing abroad, was the exclusive owner of the suit property. It was asserted that in May, 2006, the plaintiff had inducted the defendant as a tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-, which was enhanced to Rs.1500/- after one year. The defendant stopped paying rent after June, 2011, though he continued enjoying possession of the suit property. The plaintiff had served a legal notice upon the defendant on 01.12.2016 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982, but despite that, the defendant refused to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and had rather, threatened to change it materially.

4. The defendant filed his written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability and locus standi. It was asserted that the plaintiff had concealed true facts from the Court. It was further pleaded that the defendant had already paid the rent to the plaintiff as per law. It was also averred that prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff stopped receiving the rent and rather, had threatened to get the suit property vacated illegally.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property by way of eviction? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,06,500/- @ of Rs.1500/- per month with interest @ of 12% per annum along with further rent and interest? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

8. Relief.

6. Parties led their respective evidence.

7. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was allowed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023, thereby decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said decision, the defendant has filed the instant appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first Appellate Court gravelly erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is further argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, is based on misreading of evidence. It is further argued that it was proved on record before the trial Court that the defendant had cleared the entire arrears of rent and, thus, there was no ground for ordering eviction of the appellant. It is further argued that the trial Court had rightly recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his