Ramswaroop vs Chandra Prakash

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs u/s 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment & decree dated 04.03.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge Bandikui, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil First Appeal No. 03/2012, whereby the appellate court has partly allowed the said appeal against the judgment & decree dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sikrai, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No. 28/08.

It appears that the appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit against the respondent-defendant seeking recovery of rent of Rs. 17,500/- from the respondent, and seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from causing any interference in the possession of the appellants of the suit property, which was earlier let out to the respondent. As per the case of the appellants-plaintiffs, the respondent was not paying the rent since many years, and when the appellants demanded the rent, the respondent started quarreling with the appellants. Thereafter, with the intervention of the Panchas, the respondent had handed over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the appellants on 25.10.2008 and had agreed to pay Rs. 17500/- towards rent upto 31.10.2008. However, the respondent thereafter did not pay the said arrears of rent and he tried to obstruct the possession of the appellants and therefore the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the respondent-defendant by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending inter alia that the respondent was paying the rent regularly, however the appellants had forcibly taken the possession by putting lock on the suit shop, when the respondent was out of town.

The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit vide the impugned judgment & decree dated 06.11.2012, against which the appeal being No. 03/2012 was filed before the appellate court. The said appeal came to be partly allowed by the appellate court, whereby the appellate court granted the prayer of the appellants for recovery of rent with interest @ 12% per annum, however rejected the prayer for permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the said part of decree which was against the appellants, the second appeal has been filed.

It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Bheem Sain Bairwa for the appellants that the first appellate court had failed to appreciate the fact that possession of the suit shop was already handed over by the respondent to the appellants in presence of Panchas and had also agreed to pay the arrears of rent. According to him, the appellants being the owners and in possession of the suit shop, were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant.

The Court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. As transpiring from the impugned judgments & decrees passed by the courts below, the appellants had already admitted that there was a lock put on the suit shop, alongwith the lock of the appellants, and that there were some goods of respondent lying in the suit shop. Considering the said evidence, the first appellate court has held that the appellants had failed to prove any settlement having taken place between the parties and had also failed to prove that the respondent had handed over the physical possession of the suit shop to the appellants. The Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the said findings recorded by the appellate court. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. Hence, the second appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.