Romesh Verma, Judge

The present petition arises out of the order, dated i22.10.2024, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby objections filed by one of the judgment debtors, namely, Paramjit Singh to the application of the present respondent/decree holder, namely, Surinder Kumar for execution of decree, dated 20.03.2006, passed in Civil Suit No. 39/2002, titled as Surinder Kumar vs. Kiran Bala & ors., have been dismissed.

2 Facts of the case are that the present respondent/decree holder filed a suit for possession in. the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra, at Dharamshala on 22.5.2002 against the defendants, namely, Kiran Bala, Parveen, Neelam, Neena, Narinder oSingh and Paramjit Singh, sons and daughters of Arjan Singh . It was averred in the plaint that the defendants/JDs had been owners of Shop No.286 measuring 25” x 13”, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 168 min/686 min, Khoasra No. 827, situated in Ward No. 4, in the area of Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala within limits of Municipal Council, Dharamshala. The respondent/DH had been tenant in poshsession of the premises in dispute under the defendants/JDs. Since the premises in dispute required extensive repairs, therefore, on 14.06.2000, defendant No.6, Paramjit Singh and the respondent/DH entered into an agreement, Ext. PW2/A and as per its terms and conditions, the respondent/DH was to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- in two installments to defendant No.6, who in turn, was to carry out repair of the suit premises within 45 days and after completion of the repair work, he was to hand over the possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent/DH. It was averred by the respondent/DH that he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to defendant No.6 on 14.06.2000. He also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to defendant No.6/JD. Defendant No.6 though carried out repair work of the premises in dispute and pursuant to that the plaintiff requested him to d.eliver back possession of the premises, however defendant No.6/JD failed to do so.

3 As per plaintiff/DH, heo issued legal notice, Ext. PW2/B to defendant No.6 on 14 .09.2001. Despite receipt of notice, defendant No.6/JD failed to act upon the request of the plaintiff/DH. Defendant No.6/JD started his own business in the suit premises. Thoe plaintiff/DH had not surrendered his tenancy of the premises in dispute in favour of defendant No.6/JD. The possession of the defendants/JDs in the suit premises was unahuthorized and illegal. It was averred that the plaintiff/DH was entitled to possession of the premises in question. The plaintiff/DH was earning his livelihood from the shop in question. The plaintiff/DH claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- for unauthorized occupation of the premises in dispute by the defendants/JDs. Hence, suit for possession of the suit premises and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- against the defendants was filed before the learned trial court.

4 The said suit was contested by the defendants/JDs. It was admitted that plaintiff/DH and defendant No.6 had entered into an agreement, Ext. PW2/A. However, stand was taken that the plaintiff/DH did not comply with terms and conditions of the agreement. It was stated that defendant No.6/JD had reconstructed the shop in third week o.f October, 2000 and the plaintiff/DH had been duly informed about the completion of the work of reconstruction by defendant No.6. however, plaintiff did not take baock the possession of the premises as per rent of Rs.1500/-.

5 The learned trial Court framed the issues and vide its judgment and decree, dated 20.3.2006 decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/DH for opossession of the shop in dispute and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for use and occupation in terms of loss of business to the plaintiff.

6 h Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the out of six defendants, only two defendants, namely Paramjit Singh and Narinder Singh filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC in the Court of learned Distr