PHOOL SINGH Vs. MADAN LAL BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of a shop forming part of property No. 3405, Gali Hakim, Baqa, Hauz Qazi, Delhi. The suit property was an evacuee property, which was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent after it had been acquired by the Government. The appellant was the defendant in the said suit and he claims that he is in authorised possession of the shop. The property was sold by auction and at that time no reference to the occupants of the property was made in the sale-deed dated 30th January, 1965. Both the courts below have found that Phool Singh, the present appellant, was a trespasser and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) It is common ground that one Prem Behari was a tenant in the shop under the Custodian and was paying Rs. 5.00 per month as its rent. Phool Singh, the appellant, claimed that he was the heir and legal representative of Prem Behari and on his death he became a tenant under the Custodian and was, therefore, entitled to remain in possession of the premises as a tenant and the decree of possession should not be passed against him. He also claimed that he was the son of a cousin of the late Prem Behari and had been adopted as his son. However, no proof of his having been adopted in any ceremony is forthcoming and his own documents show that he has been described as Lal Chand's son and not the son of the deceased Prem Behari. In this connection the licence issued by the Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments, Delhi, Exhibit D. 5, describes .the appellant as son of Lal Chand. In the circumstances, it was rightly held by both the courts below that Phool Singh was not the legal heir of Prem Behari and, therefore, could not claim to have acquired the tenancy rights in the premises by succeeding to him after Prem Behari died.

(3.) Mr. .V. B. Andley, appearing for the appellant, has based his case mainly on the four receipts, Exhibits D.I to D. 4, which have been issued by the Rehabilitation Department to the appellant. These receipts also give the numbers of other receipts, which have been issued in favour of the present appellant and it seems that Phool Singh remained in occupation of the shop after Prem Behari's death, which took place some time even before 1960. Hence, the circumstances show that Phool Singh has been in possession of the shop for nearly five years or even more before the property was sold by the Ministry of Rehabilitation to the plaintiff-respondent. In this connection two ocuments Exhibits D. 5 and D. 6, produced by the defendantappellant, show that he had been carrying on business in these premises even in 1960. Exhibit D. 5 shows that Messrs Phool Singh and Brothers were registered under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, on 20th December, 1960. In the certificate, the appellant is shown as the occupier/employer. In Exhibit D. 6, which is a licence issued by the Central Excise Department, the said firm of Messrs Phool Singh and Brothers was authorised to manufacture wireless receiving sets in the year ending 31st December. 1961, in the premises in dispute. The said licence also shows that it was renewed for the years 1962 and 1963. Hence, one can conclude that the appellant has been in occupation of the premises for a long time. The receipts Exhibits D.1 to D. 4, that I have already referred to, are a little contradictory. In one of them, Exhibit D. 4, it is shown that the amount paid has been paid as damages, whereas the other receipts Exhibits D-1 to D. 3 do not show that the amounts charged by the Ministry of Rehabilitation were in the form of damages. but the receipts show that the amounts charged were either on account of rent or lease money. As Exhibit D. 4 is a later document than Exhibits D. 2, and earlier than Exhibits D. 1 and D. 3, the exact position of the appellant in the premises is very doubtful. The learned Additional District Judge in disposing of the appeal has held that the words: "rent/licence fee/lease money" in Exhibits D. 1 to D. 3 meant nothing and Exhibit D. 4 by specifically stating that the charges were by way of "damages" decide the question. The learned Additional District Judge also relied on the evidence of Saran Behari Lal, Public Witness 1, a Clerk of the Regional Settlement Office, to show that according to the records, Phool Singh was never in occupation of the premises as a tenant. From this finding, the learned Additional District Judge concluded that the finding of the trial court that the appellant was no more than a trespasser was correct and affirmed the same.