A finding on the question of tenancy is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in a second appeal.

JUDGMENT :- This second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction which the plaintiff sought against the defendants seeking to restrain the latter from dispossessing the former from a portion in house no. S. 15/15-16 situated in Mohalla Ghausabad in Varanasi. The plaintiff, in brief, claimed to be a tenant of the said portion and the defendant No. 4, Smt. Kunti Devi, was alleged to be the landlady. The defendants, Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Raj Kumarsingh and Harish Chandra, are the sons of the defendant No. 4 and the defendant No. 3. Maniram, is the husband of defendant No. 4. The portion in dispute was claimed to be in the tenancy of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month and he also claimed that he had been doing his Motor Car repair work in the said accommodation. The plaintiff s case was that even though he was a tenant at the said rate, the defendants never gave him a rent receipt even though as tenant he had been regularly paying the rent. It was alleged that the defendants were interested in enhancing the rent and as the plaintiff was not agreeable, therefore, the defendants were in a mood to evict the plaintiff from the accommodation in dispute even by force. In view of this threat, the plaintiff alleged that he was compelled to sue the defendants.

2. The defence was that the suit had been filed collusively by the plaintiff in collusion with his father. It was denied that the plaintiff was the tenant in the portion in dispute. It was claimed that there were various tenants in the house and these tenancies were regularly witnessed by rent notes executed by the tenants and the rents paid by the said tenants were against receipts granted by the landlady. It was further alleged that formerly the accommodation in dispute was tenanted by one Chhakauri who remained a tenant up to 1961 and after his death, the said accommodation was got released and thereafter it continued to be in the occupation of the defendants and they kept their repairing and denting workshop in the said accommodation. Thereafter, it was alleged that the brother of the plaintiff Prem Chand was a mechanic and, therefore, the defendants kept him in their workshop during the period from 1957 to 1965. In 1965 Prem Chand died and thereafter, the father of Prem Chand and the plaintiff were kept in the said workshop. There were several complaints against the plaintiff s father Munnu and, therefore, the defendants intended to remove him. When Munnu came to know of the said intention of the defendants, he got the instant suit filed by his son, the plaintiff.

3. On the said pleadings, the trial court framed 3 issues and they are as follows :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is defendants tenant as alleged? If so its effect.

2. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

3. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of workshop as alleged?

4. On issue No. 1, the trial court held against the plaintiff and the plaintiff s claim that he was the tenant in the disputed accommodation was rejected. On issue No. 3, the trial court held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the ownership of the workshop in the disputed accommodation and that the claim of the defendants that they owned the workshop was not proved. On issue No. 2, the trial court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. On these findings, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff took out an appeal to the lower appellate court and the said court allowed the same, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court concurred with the trial court s finding that the workshop in the disputed accommodation belonged to and was owned by the plaintiff and not by the defendants. However, on the question of tenancy, the lower appellate court, in disagreement with the trial court, held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the tenancy in the accommodation in question.

5. In this second appeal, on behalf of the defendants, Sri G. S. Srivastava, Lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document