MOHAN LAL Vs. KALU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is against a judgment and decree of Shri M. K. Chawla, Additional District Judge, Delhi confirming decree of recovery of possession passed by a Sub Judge I Class, Delhi against the present appellant Mohan Lal (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and in favour of Shri Kalu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff).

(2.) The defendant is in occupation of a room forming part of house No. 22/55, Gali No. 17, Nai Basti Anand Parbat, New Delhi. According to the plaintiff he is owner of the aforesaid house. He brought a suit for recovery of possession of that room from the defendant with the following assertions. Defendant was originally residing in military barracks as sub- tenant of someone. He (defendant) did not want that the fact of sub- letting should be known by anyone so that his landlord may not he in difficulty. He, therefore, approached plaintiff to allow the former the use of postal address of the house of the latter. There was friendship between plaintiff and defendant on account of fact that the former used to hire three wheeler scooter of the latter which the latter plies. On account of that friendship plaintiff agreed to the request of the defendant. That arrangement continued for sometime and in the meantime relations as friends between the parties further developed. In the last week of Jan. 1976 defendant approached plaintiff with a request that the former be allowed to place his luggage in a room of aforesaid house of latter on the ground that the former had been asked by the allottee of the Military barrack quarter to vacate. Plaintiff agreed subject to the condition that the defendant will take away his luggage after the expiry of 20 days, but in spite of that defendant did not do to and therefore there was quarrel between the parties on account of which a case under Sec. 324 Indian Penal Cods was registered against the defendant on March 11, 1976. Not only that the defendant did not stick to the premises of vacating after 28 clays he started creating evidence of his possession by way of netting ration card at the address made which necessitated bringing of the suit for recovery of possession.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit. He stated that room in question had been let out to him as tenant on rent of Rs. 25.00 per month and that he was never a licensee. He denied assertion of the plaintiff that the former had requested latter for allowing former to use postal address of the house. He also denied that the plaintiff was owner of the house. He pleaded that as relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and his it was only rent controller who could entertain ejectment petition and the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the one. The trial proceeded on the following issues:-