NOOR ELAHI Vs. SHEIKH ABDUL GAFFAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL). This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4th January, 1972 in R.S.A. No. 52 of 1969. It has arisen out of a suit filed by the Respondent Sheikh Abdul Gaffar against the appellant Noor Elahi praying for ejectment of the latter and for recovery of arrears of rent. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appeal filed before the Additional Senior Sub Judge and the second appeal filed in this Court were dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit praying for the ejectment of the appellant Noor Elahi from the suit plot of land and for recovery of Rs. 115.62 on account of arrears of rent for three years ending 31st December, 1965. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of the suit plot, that the appellant-defenda,nt was in occupation of the plot as a tenant on behalf of the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 3.12 P, that a sum of Rs. 115.62 as arrears of rent was due, that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a notice dated 6th December, 1965 and since the defendant did not vacate the suit plot inspite of the termination of tenancy, the suit for ejectment and recovery was filed.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit. He pleaded that the plaintiff was not the owner, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, that he was a tenant in respect of the premises and not of any vacant plot and as such the suit was not maintainable and that the Civil court had no jurisdiction. The plantiff filed replication repudiating the allegations of the defendant. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was charging rent only for the vacant plot and that the tin shed on the plot was put up by the defendant himself. The plaintiff further stated that he previously filed an application before the Rent Controller under mistaken advice and on realising the said mistake of the counsel, he withdrew the application on the ground that the Controller had no jurisdiction. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :