RAM SINGH Vs. AJAY CHAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Second Appeal on the ground that there was no substantial question of law. The only plea on behalf of the appellants was that they were claiming sub-tenancy from Shri Bhure in respect of the different portions of the premises in question. The question whether Civil Court had jurisdiction or not in the facts of this case was a substantial question of law. Therefore, it was submitted that the High Court committed an error of law in not allowing the appeal before it. We are unable to accept this contention. It is clear and established that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question by succession. There is no dispute as to his title. The contention of the respondent was that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation. The two Courts on facts have upheld that contention. The High Court refused to interfere with that finding of fact. If these facts i.e. to say the respondent is the owner of the premises and the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of the premises then only the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to order eviction of the premises in question and no other court. On such a plea and on such finding the respondent could not have gone to any court but the Civil Court for eviction. In that view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere with the orders of the High Court. Our attention was drawn on certain decisions of this Court viz. Babulal Bhuramal v. Nandram Shivram, 1959 SCR 367: (AIR 1958 SC 677 ); Om Prakash Gupta v. Dr. Rattan Singh, (1964) 1 SCR 259 at p. 264 and Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty, AIR 1987 SC 2055.

(2.) These cases dealt with entirely different contexts and observations made therein are not material. In the aforesaid view of the matter there is no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court. These appeals therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order of costs.

(3.) The appellants are given time to vacate the premises in question till 30-6-88 upon filing the following usual undertaking within four weeks from today. If the rooms are locked, keys will be handed over at the time of delivery of the possession to the Trial Court.