RSA No. 1289 of 2014 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 1289 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision 28.8.2014

Jagan Nath through attorney Parkash Singh

....Appellant

Versus

Amarjit Singh and another

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate

for the appellant.

***

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

***

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

(Oral)

Present appeal, at the instance of the defendant, is directed

against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned

courts below, whereby the suit for possession by way of ejectment of

defendant-appellant, from the shops Mark as ABCD shown in red

colour in the site plan, was decreed.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed in para 3 to 5 by the

learned first appellate court in the impugned judgment, are that

Sohan Singh-father of the plaintiff was owner of the shops. He

AMIT KUMAR

2014.09.02 14:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No. 1289 of 2014 (O&M)

2

inducted the defendant as tenant at monthly rent of `600/- per month

payable in advance. Tenancy was monthly and was at the Will of the

landlord. Sohan Singh died on 10.6.2001 and he was succeeded by

his widow Gurdev Kaur, sons Amarjit Singh and Charanjit Singh as

well as his daughters Pritam Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur in equal shares.

The property was divided through family settlement. Eastern shop in

dispute came to the share of Pritam Kaur-plaintiff and the western

shop came to the share of Amarjit Singh plaintiff. Memorandum of the

family partition was scribed on 14.8.2002. As such, the plaintiffs were

owners of the shop in dispute. The defendant was told regarding the

settlement and he was asked to give rent of the shops to plaintiff-

Amarjit Singh. It was averred that Sohan Singh was receiving rent

from the defendant during his life time and after him, the rent was

being collected by the plaintiff till January, 2004. Thereafter, the

defendant did not pay rent and was in arrears of the rent. It was

further averred that the plaintiffs did not want to keep the defendant

as their tenant in the shop and terminated tenancy through a valid

and registered notice dated 3.3.2004. It was further averred that the

defendant was bound to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiffs and to

hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to them.

The defendant was requested many times to hand over the vacant

possession and to pay the remaining rent but to no effect. Hence the

present suit. It was prayed that decree for possession be passed

against the defendant for ejectment from the shop as fully detailed in

head note of the plaint with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and

against the defendant.

AMIT KUMAR

2014.09.02 14:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No. 1289 of 2014 (O&M)

3

Put to notice, the defendant appeared and written statement

was filed taking preliminary objections that eastern shop as shown in

the site plan was constructed on khasra No. 180/1 which was

shamlat and as such, the plaintiffs had no concern with the said

shop. It was also submitted that the said shop was constructed by

Charanjit-brother of the plaintiffs. Objection was also raised that suit

was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and plea of estoppal

was also raised. It was further submitted that the defendant

purchased 5½ sarsahis of land out of khasra No. 180/2 from

Charanjit Singh vide registered sale deed dated 4.11.2004 and as

such they became co-sharer in the land, hence the plaintiffs have no

right to file ejectment petition against a co-sharer. On merits, it was

admitted that earlier Sohan Singh was owner in possession of the

site shown in blue colour in the site plan being a co-sharer in khasra

No. 180/2. He along with his sons have raised construction in th