RSA No. 156 of 2003. Case: Urmila Devi Vs Baldev Raj. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | RSA No. 156 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Neeraj Gupta, Advocate |
| Judges | Piar Singh Rana, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 |
| Judgement Date | October 01, 2015 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Piar Singh Rana, J.
-
Present RSA is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against judgment and decree dated 9.1.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala HP in Civil Appeal No. 61-B/2001 titled Baldev Raj v. Urmila Devi.
Brief facts of the case:
-
Smt. Urmila Devi plaintiff filed civil suit for possession of shop situated in khata No. 249 khatauni No. 590 khasra No. 126 measuring 0-00-32 hectares mohal and mauza Baijnath District Kangra HP vide jamabandi for the year 1992-93. Plaintiff also sought additional relief for recovery of Rs. 8100/- (Eight thousand one hundred) on account of arrears of rent for three years w.e.f. December 1995 to November 1998 @ Rs. 225/- per month. It is pleaded that plaintiff is owner of shop situated in suit land. It is pleaded that defendant is tenant. It is pleaded that defendant did not pay rent. It is pleaded that shop is in dilapidated condition and it requires major repairs. It is pleaded that shop would collapse at any time. It is pleaded that plaintiff also required the shop for her personal use and occupation. It is pleaded that plaintiff wants to reconstruct shop. It is pleaded that plaintiff requested defendant to pay rent and to vacate the shop but defendant did not accept the request of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that tenancy of the shop is on monthly basis. It is pleaded that plaintiff served notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 upon defendant terminating the tenancy of defendant. It is pleaded that despite notice defendant did not vacate the shop. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought.
-
Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that suit in the present form is not maintainable and plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct to file present suit. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit. It is pleaded that Urmila Devi did not appoint Sh Milap Chand as her attorney. It is pleaded that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that no valid and proper notice is given to the defendant as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882. It is pleaded that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pleaded that suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It is denied that plaintiff is owner of the shop. It is pleaded that shop was rented out to defendant by Sh. Saran Dass about 33 years back. It is pleaded that tenancy in favour of defendant is perpetual tenancy. It is pleaded that defendant is regularly paying rent to Saran Dass. It is denied that shop is in dilapidated condition. It is denied that shop would collapse at any time. It is pleaded that successor-in-interest of late Sh Saran Dass and plaintiff during pendency of suit have damaged the northern wall of the shop with mischievous and malafide intention. It is pleaded that Urmila Devi is not owner of the premises. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no locus standi to claim the rent and also to seek eviction of the shop. It is pleaded that no cause of action is created in favour of plaintiff. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought.
-
Plaintiff also filed replication and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in the plaint. As per pleadings of parties following issues were framed by learned trial Court on dated 9.5.2000.
-
Whether plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the shop in question as alleged?...OPP.
-
Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 8,100/- from defendant as alleged?...OPP.
-
Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged?...OPD
-
Whether plaintiff is estopped from filling present suit as alleged?...OPD
-
Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit as alleged?...OPD
-
Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged?...OPD
-
...
To continue reading
Request your trial