RAMJI LAL AND ORS. Vs. GURBAX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated May 24, 1979 passed by Shri Z.S. Lohat, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dismissing an application of the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 and Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Shri Gurbux Singh (respondent before me) filed a suit for possession against the petitioners (defendant in the suit) in respect of a portion of house No. 11/71, 72, 73 and 74, ground floor and 11/78, 1st floor, situated in Sadar Bizar, Delhi Cantt. The allegations made in the plaint are that out of the above building, Shri Mangal Chand was tenant in II/73-74 (old) and II/51/7 and II/51/8 (new). The plaintiff had earlier filed proceedings for ejectment of the said Shri Mangal Chand in which an ejectment decree/order was passed by Shri P.C Saini, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on Aug. 24, 1960 regarding residential portion of the premises. A notice of termination of the tenancy was served on Shri Mangal Chand who was a statutory tenant at the time of his death on May 17, 1970. The defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Mangal Chand. The suit for possession is thus based on the title of the plaintiff.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is pleaded that the property in suit was leased out by the Union of India and Cantonment Board in favour of Rattan Singh and the heirs of Asa Singh. The property in suit was transferred by M/s. Aga Singh-Rattan Singh in favour of the plaintiff and this transfer is alleged as in contravention of the terms of the lease. It is further pleaded that the Union of India has terminated the leasehold rights and all rights and interests whatsoever the plaintiff had in the property in suit, vested in the President of India and as such, the plaintiff hag no locus stands to institute the suit. We further pleaded is that the original lessee Rattan Singh and the heirs of Asa Singh had surrendered their leasehold rights in the land in suit in the end of 1976 in favour of the Union of India and the plaintiff has not been recognised as owner or lessee of the property and thus the plaintiff is neither the owner of the land nor of the super-structure thereupon.