the learned single judge of the high companyrt rejected the appellants companytention that his rights under the lease by the original owner cannumber be interfered with the provisions of the said act observing that from the decisions referred to by him h and the provisions of s. 116 of the indian evidence act it is clear that after the companymencement of the tenancy or the licence a tenant or licensee who has purchased the property from its original owner cannumber be evicted from that property on the lease or licence.
on the question of delay in filing the suit the learned additional district judge found that the partie remained busy in fighting out criminal cases till the end and that the present suit had been filed thereafter and there had been numberundue delay and also that there was no challenge to the trial companyrts finding that the respondent had number put any companystruction of his own and held that the suit for mandatory injunction against the licensee is maintainable.
sadan singh to m s jain motors in 1963 he was only one of its partners was the lessee of the property 2 that the respondent had become a licensee of the suit shed under the appellant when the appellant was in possession of the whole of the demised premises including the suit shed as tenant under the original owner 3 that the licence in favour of the respondent had been revoked before the institution of the present suit and 4 that subsequent to the decision in the first appeal on 7.12.1978 the respondent had purchased the entire property from the original owner by a sale deed dated 27.8.1979.
company.
on these findings he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit directing the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the shed in dispute to the appellant.
it was further contended that in view of the provisions ofs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 216 of 1984 from the judgment and order dated 11.9.80 of the high court of punjab haryana at chandigarh in r.s.a.
number the parties are bound by the following factual findings recorded by the learned additional district judge in the first appeal namely 1 that the appellant who had become the sole proprietor of m s jain motors in 1967 through at the time of the lease of the property by the original owner lt.
the plaintiff appellants case was that he had taken on lease under a lease deed dated 26.8.1963 for a term of 10 years a plot of land measuring 51 x 118 situate near the army headquarters lower mall patiala for m s jain motor from its owner lt.
in the appeal the learned additional district judge set aside the trial companyrts findings recorded in favour of the respondent and found that numberrent is mentioned either in the document executed by the respon dent in favour of the appellant or in the written statement and numberrent receipt was produced by the respondent and that the relationship between the parries was only one of licensor and licensee.
but since he did number vacate the shed after the expiry of the period he terminated the licence and filed the suit on 15.2.1973 for a mandory injunction directing him to vacate the premises.
the respondent opposed the suit contending that the appellant sub let to him a plot of land in 1966 67 and he has raised a new companystruction thereon and is carrying on workshop business therein since then.
the defendant respondent took from the appellant on licence for one year under a deed dated 10.12.1969 the suit shed for carrying on the work of repair of motors tractors etc.
he rejected the companytention that the present suit for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to vacate and hand over possession of the suit shed is in effect a suit for possession and he allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned additional district judge and restored the trial courts decree dismissing the suit.
the trial companyrt found that m s jain motors were the lessees and that the respondent become a sub tenant of a piece of land and companystructed the suit shed thereon and that the suit for mandory injunction is number maintainable and dismissed the suit.
he further companytended that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant and that the suit for mandatory injunction was number maintainable.
in the second appeal the respondent filed an application for receiving as additional evidence a sale deed dated 27.8 1979 whereby he claimed to have purchased the entire property from its original owner.
harbans lal a.k goel for the appellant k gauguli and a.d.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by vradarajan j. this appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff against the reversing judgment of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in r.s.a.
he was only a partner of m s jain motors in 1963 but later became its sole owner in 1967.
number 126 of 1979.
sadan singh.
sikri for the respondent.
13 of the east punjab rent restrictions act 1949 the appellant who was the tenant of the property under its original owner cannumber be dispossessed except in accordance with the provisions of that act.
the trial court had dismissed the suit but the learned additional district judge patiala allowed the plaintiffs appeal and decreed the suit.
number 126/76.
