CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have impugned the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 11.9.2009. Relevant would it be to state that two appeals have arisen out of two suits filed by the plaintiff namely Raj Kumari and another. The first suit was a suit for possession of the suit property bearing No.IX/114, Shyam Block, Kailash Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the suit property'). The second suit was a suit for recovery of arrears of rent/damages.

(2.) THE trial judge had decreed both the suits in favour of the plaintiff vide its judgment dated 11.9.2009. Both these judgments were reaffirmed by the first appellate court on 26.7.2010.

(3.) THE substantial questions of law have been formulated by the appellant in the body of the appeal. THE same have been read. THEse are two appeals and separate substantial questions of law have been formulated in the two separate appeals. THEy are all fact based and border on the question as to whether the notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant terminating his tenancy was a valid notice; whether plaintiff no.2 could have filed the suit when the property stood transferred to plaintiff no.1.