IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Civil Revision No. 27 of 2021

Daya Shankar ............Revisionist

Versus

Satish ............ Respondent

Present:

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Manokam Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent.

Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 39/2011, Shri Satish vs. Shri Daya Shankar whereby the SCC suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed. Being aggrieved with the order

the instant revision has been preferred.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent / plaintiff instituted a SCC suit bearing SCC Suit No. 39 of 2011 before the Judge, Small Cause Court for seeking ejectment and arrears of rent against the defendant /revisionist and in para-1 of the plaint specific averment has been made that father of the defendant/revisionist namely Hari Prasad was tenant on the shops on monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- situated in Moti Bazar, Dehradun. It is also contended in para-1 that the father of the defendant / revisionist died and thereafter, defendant occupied the said

shops and running a business in the name of M/s National Traders.

3. In response to the averment as made in plaint, written statement was filed and in para-1 of the written statement, this fact has not been denied by the defendant/revisionist that his father Hari Prasad was the tenant in the

shops in question, on the monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-. In para-13 onwards to para-18, in the written statement defendant/revisionist contended earlier the plaintiff executed two agreement to sell on 18.05.1995 for selling out two shops is question bearing Shop No. 37/9 and 37/10 with M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar and both the agreements were registered and after receiving the full and final consideration of the shop, the possession was also handed over to M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar. It is further contended in the additional statement that M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar further executed an assignment deed on 10.05.2005 in favour of M/s National Traders with all rights which M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar derived from the agreement dated 18.05.1995. This assignment deed was executed by M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar after receiving the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-. In para-15, it is also contended that by virtue of assignment deed dated 10.05.2005 the defendants are in possession over the shop in question i.e. shop no. 37/9 and 37/10 and were never been the tenant of the plaintiff since all right over the shops in question which were transferred by virtue of earlier agreement to sell dated 18.05.1995 to M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar was further transferred to Ms/ National Traders by virtue of assignment deed dated 10.05.2005.

4. It is further contended that since by virtue of the agreement to sell dated 18.05.1995 the entire consideration towards the shops in question were received by the plaintiff and he has also handed over the possession to M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar which were transferred to the defendant by virtue of assignment deed, therefore, the defendants cannot be treated to be the tenant of the plaintiff. It is also contended in the written statement that the defendant / revisionist were never been the tenant of plaintiff.

5. On the other side Mr. B.P.Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent argued that the earlier agreement to sell was executed in between the plaintiff and M/s Ram Jeevan Gauri Shankar and the period as stated therein for execution of sale deed was three years which was already expired in 1998 but no attempt was made by the second party for execution of the sale deed within the stipulated period, therefore, his right over the shops in question already extinguished on the expiry of the period as stipulated in the agreement to sell d