RSA-909-2022

2023:PHHC:087075

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

RSA-909-2022

Date of Decision: 12.7.2023

Parmod Kumar

....Appellant

VERSUS

Pawan Kumar and another

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Present :

Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate,

for the respondents.

*******

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

By way of present appeal, the appellant/defendant has laid

challenge to the judgments and decrees dated 16.2.2017 and 21.3.2022

passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for possession and to pay

arrears of rent and mesne profits along with interest filed by respondents

No.1 and 2 has been decreed.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are

owners of shop in dispute bearing No.6, Old No.209-A situated in Bakala

Market, Sadhaura, Tehsil and District Yamuna Nagar and that the appellant

was inducted as a tenant in the said shop at monthly rent of `1000/-. The

appellant failed to pay rent since 1.4.2011 and also impaired the value and

utility of the shop. Respondents No.1 and 2 terminated the tenancy of the

appellant by serving him legal notice dated 11.1.2012 but he failed to vacate

the shop in question. Hence the suit.

PARITOSH KUMAR

2023.07.18 12:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this Judicial

Record/Decree/Document

RSA-909-2022

2023:PHHC:087075

2

3.

The suit was contested by the appellant who filed written

statement taking preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the

suit, locus standi and cause of action of respondents No.1 and 2. On merits,

the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied and it

was pleaded that Parkash Chand father of respondents No.1 and 2 was

owner of the shop and he let out the same to the appellant at monthly rent of

` 225/- vide rent note dated 7.1.1989 and with the passage of time, the rent

was enhanced to ` 290/- per month and then to ` 430/- per month and

Parkash Chand was regularly receiving the rent against proper receipts. In

2008, Parkash Chand fell ill and then his wife Saraswati Devi started

receiving rent and the appellant paid rent up to December, 2011 to her.

Thereafter, the entire rent was being deposited in the Court. Prayer was

made that the suit be dismissed.

4.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed : -

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for ejectment, possession,

recovery and for grant of mesne profits as detailed in the

head note of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file and

maintain the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present

suit by their own act and conduct? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean

hands and suppressed true and material facts from the Court?

OPD

PARITOSH KUMAR

2023.07.18 12:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this Judicial

Record/Decree/Document

RSA-909-2022

2023:PHHC:087075

3

6. Relief.

5.

Respondents No.1 and 2 in support of their case examined PW1

Rajvinder Singh, Draftsman and respondent No.2-Virender Kumar as PW2

who tendered into evidence documents legal notice dated 11.1.2012 Ex.P6,

postal receipt and acknowledgement Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and reply to the legal

notice Ex.P9. PW3-Rohtash Singh, DRK proved documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P5.

Respondents No.1 and 2 also tendered notification Ex.P12, sale deed

Ex.P13 and site plan Ex.P14.

6.

On the other hand, the appellant himself appeared in the

witness box as DW1 and proved rent deed Ex.D1 and rent receipts Ex.D2 to

Ex.D16 and reply to the legal notice as Ex.D17. DW2-Shiv Charan also

proved rent deed Ex.D1 being it's attesting witness, DW-3/Rameshwar

Dass, Clerk, UHBVNL proved electricity bills Ex.D18 to Ex.D23.

DW4/Nitin Kumar, Sub Post Master proved postal receipts and money

or