SURINDER SINGH Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2007 endorsing the finding of the trial court dated 19.3.2005 wherein the suit of the plaintiff/respondent Tilak Raj for possession and damages had been decreed in his favour.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the tenant/appellant. The questions of law have been formulated on page 6 of the appeal. It is submitted that the landlord/respondent i.e. Tilak Raj, even as per his own case was the lessee of the lessor who is Delhi Development Authority (DDA); DDA should have been impleaded as a party. Further the conviction of the respondent Tilak Raj for the offence punishable under Section 453 of the IPC was primarily the reason for treating the appellant as a tress-passer which is an incorrect appreciation of the legal proposition; judgment of the criminal court is never binding on the civil court. Further the suit filed by the respondent for possession/simplicitor without asking for the relief of a mandatory injunction seeking demolition of the unauthorized structure on the suit property was also by itself not maintainable; all these submissions have raised a substantial question of law.

(3.) Arguments have been heard.