SARDAR JOGINDER SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant who claims to be the legal heir of Late Sh. Gurbax Singh, owner of Shop No. 60, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, who claims to have let out an almirah shop fixed on the wall of shop No. 60 Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh to one Gopal Kishan Wahi in September, 1966, and after the vacation of the same, on 01.09.1972 to let out the same to Sh. Mehar Singh at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. Relying upon the counter foils placed on record and rent deed alleged to have executed by Sh. Mehar Singh it was pleaded that Sh. Mehar Singh in his life time sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the suit property and after his death, the second respondent was in occupation thereof and, therefore, the possession of the suit property was parted with by the tenant without the permission of the landlord. It was also pleaded that Sh. Surjit Singh, who is the son of Sh. Mehar Singh sub-let the property to Sh. Sardul Singh, respondent No. 2 which fact came to the notice of the landlord in January, 1982 who served notice dated 25.04.1982 in this regard. Later on, he filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) & (b) of the DRC Act on 01.02.1984. The suit was contested by the second respondent who denied that the first respondent was ever a tenant in the suit property and claimed direct tenancy having been inducted in the suit property w.e.f. January, 1973 @ Rs. 25/- per month besides ?10/- per month as electricity charges. It was further pleaded that he was carrying on his business in the premises bearing No. 83-A, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi but due to removal of counters in emergency used to store the goods in the suit premises. It was submitted that earlier, the suit was filed by the second respondent against the appellant for injunction wherein appellant made a statement not to evict him without following due process of law.

(2.) After recording evidence of the parties which comprised of the statement made by AW1 i.e. the appellant, Sh. Kasturi Lal, AW2 who was examined to prove rent agreement Exhibit A-1 executed in favour of Sh. Gopal Kishan Wahi, Sh. Sat Pal, Clerk of L & DO, AW-4, Sh. O.N. Khanna and AW-8, Sh. Jagat Singh who are stated to be witnesses of agreement Mark 'B' alleged to have executed by Sh. Mehar Singh in favour of the landlord and other witnesses from MCD on the one hand and Smt. Balbir Kaur who appeared as RW-1 and Sh. Gurbax Singh, RW-2 on behalf of the respondent, the additional rent controller dismissed the eviction petition vide judgment dated 27.10.1999 in the aforesaid judgment. The Additional Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the suit premises was never let out by the appellant to late Sh. Mehar Singh father of the first respondent and that in fact the premises were let out to the second respondent. The relevant observations made by the ARC in this regard are reproduced hereunder:

(3.) It may be observed here that in view of the aforesaid and there being no evidence led by the appellant to prove the handwriting of Mehar Singh on the alleged rent deed, the Court came to a conclusion that there was no relationship of the deceased/landlord and Mehar Singh. ARC further observed as under: