This Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The bench held that no substantial question of law arose, as the defendant failed to provide tangible evidence to prove coercion regarding the tenancy agreement execution. Previous judgments were relied upon.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
R.S.A. No. 4097/2013 Reserved on: 2.9.2013 Decided on: 5.9.2013
______________________________________________________________ Vidya Sagar Gupta …Appellant. -VersusRamesh Kumar Sharma & anr. ….Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
____________________________________________________________ For the appellants : Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.5.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 25-S/13 of 2012.
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
month of May 2006. He executed a Will dated 1.7.1988 in favour of the plaintiffs. Mutation No.912 was attested in this regard. Late Budh Ram inducted the defendant as tenant in one room accommodation measuring 5 x 20 feet at the monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The plaintiff after the death of Budh Ram requested the defendant to vacate the premises. The defendant agreed to vacate the premises by 30.6.2008. In this regard, an agreement, Ext.PW1/A was executed in the presence of the parties. However, despite undertaking having been given by the defendant, he did not vacate the premises. A legal notice dated 29.9.2008 was served upon the defendant by the plaintiffs regarding termination of his tenancy. He was again requested to vacate the premises on or before 31.10.2008, but the defendant failed to do so. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is also in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2006 to 30.9.2008.
4 The replication was filed by the plaintiffs. The issues were framed by the learned trial court on 10.9.2009 and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14.3.2012, directing the
defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop measuring 5 x 20 feet situated in Khasras No.86, 579 and 42, at Junga Bazaar, Shimla. The defendant was further directed to pay Rs.2600/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as rent w.e.f. 1.8.2006 to 30.9.2008. He was also directed to pay use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.2008 till the date of passing of the judgment along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Madan Lal and PW3 Bansi Lal are the marginal witnesses to the agreement, Ext. PW1/A. Both these witnesses have admitted their signatures on agreement, Ext.PW1/A. Both the parties have executed the agreement without any pressure. Though the defendant has not denied his signature on Ext. PW1/A, but has taken a specific stand that the President and Vice President of Gram Panchayat Junga had obtained his signatures on blank papers by pressurizing him.
PW4, Madan Lal Sharma, has deposed that registered letter No.2452 dated 29.9.2008 was booked at GPO in the name of Vidya Sagar. He has further deposed that in case the addressee does not receive the letter, it is received back undelivered. He has categorically stated there is no record in the office indicating that the addressee has not received the letter. The address given on Ext.PW1/B is the same address, which has been given by the defendant before the learned trial court. The defendant was also served before the learned trial court on the same address. It is not the case of the defendant that he was not available on the given address in Ext.PW1/B during a period of one week from 29.9.2008. Thus, notice of termination of tenancy issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant has been duly proved. The tenancy of the defendant has rightly been terminated on the basis of legal notice dated 29.9.2008, Ext.PW1/B and the learned first appellate court has rightly relied on section 27 of the General Clauses Act.
5.9. 2013 (pankaj)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal regarding the execution of the tenancy agreement and termination notice.
Whether the defendant successfully proved that his signatures on the agreement were obtained under pressure.
Whether the termination of tenancy via registered notice was legally valid.
Vidya Sagar Gupta
Ramesh Kumar Sharma
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
