KARE DIN Vs. RAKESH MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the tenant of premises in dispute. The case of the appellant is that he was put in possession over the property by one R. K. Bali. Subsequently, one H. N. Bali, brother of R. K. Bali by an agreement, agreed to transfer the property in favour of plaintiff-respondent. After the said agreement, the plaintiff brought a suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant (tenant) on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The defendant-appellant took a plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties an as such the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(2.) The trial court found that the plaintiff is not the landlord and, therefore, the suit was dismissed. However, the first appellate court found that the plaintiff for the purpose of bringing a suit for recovery of rent is a landlord. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and suit was decreed.

(3.) The tenant filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal summarily holding that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. It is against the said judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.