U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

Present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant / appellant being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2015, passed by learned Addl. District Judge II, Haridwar, in Civil Appeal no. 95 of 2013, Nav Jyoti Society vs Karan Mesieh, whereby the civil appeal filed by the plaintiff / respondent was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar, in O.S. no. 316 of 2002 was partly decreed directing the defendant / appellant to handover vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff / respondent within thirty days.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present second appeal are as follows:

(i) Original suit no. 316 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff for granting the relief of recovery of possession against the defendant and for recovery damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the defendant in respect of the property in dispute, consisting of one room, one kitchen and one toilet situated at Jwalapur within the premises of St. Mary Senior Secondary School and Holy Family Church, Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. Learned trial court framed seven issues in the suit and decided issue nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the defendant and issue no. 7 in favour of plaintiff and after recording categorical findings issuewise, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2013.

(ii) Learned trial court decided issue nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the defendant and issue no. 7 in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, but learned First Appellate Court without reversing / setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court, allowed the first appeal in a casual manner vide judgment and order dated 17.08.2015.

(iii) Neither learned First Appellate Court decided any single issue nor framed any point while deciding the appeal, thereby committed illegality in allowing the appeal.

(iv) Learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the defendant was watchman in the Institution and he was permitted to live in the accommodation in question with the condition that whenever required, he shall vacate the same, but the plaintiff did not place any document before the courts below showing that conditional permission was granted to the defendant. Rather the defendant placed on record letter dated 11.12.1995, which shows that the then Father M.A. Joseph had given the permission to respondent to construct one house and one kitchen in school premises. It is nowhere stated in the plaint that defendant is the licensee of plaintiff.

(v) It was stated that the license of the defendant was terminated through a registered notice. Hence, according to the plaintiff, the defendant was its licensee, but the defendant neither accepted nor rejected it in his written statement. Hence, there was no question to believe that defendant was the licensee of the plaintiff.

(vi) The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court were perverse inasmuch as the plaintiff did not produce any evidence before the trial court that the plaintiff got constructed the accommodation in question with the expenses of the plaintiff society.

(vii) Learned First Appellate Court has erred in law in recording a finding that the defendant was licensee of the plaintiff.

(viii) Learned First Appellate Court has committed illegality in allowing the appeal without setting aside the findings recorded by the court below.

(ix) The judgment and decree impugned is wholly illegal, arbitrary and as such liable to the set aside.

3. Plaintiff filed an O.S. no. 316 of 2002 against the defendant for eviction. The defendant contested the suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, seven issues were framed by the trial court. The same read as under:

(1) Whether the plaintiff served notice according to law before filing the suit?

(2) Whether the valuation is incorrect?