GHANSHYAM DASS GUPTA Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2009 which has reversed the finding of the trial Judge dated 03.07.2008. Vide judgment and decree dated 03.07.2008 the suit filed by the plaintiffs Ghanshyam Dass Gupta and Anr seeking possession of the suit property (i.e. two rooms with common latrine and open and covered verandah on the ground floor of property bearing No. 2918, Aryapura Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007) had been decreed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit of the plaintiffs stood dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that his father Baishakhi Ram Gupta was the owner of the aforenoted suit property. He had tenanted the suit premises to Ram Sharan. After the death of Ram Sharan his widow Khazani Devi had inherited the tenancy which tenancy was terminated during her lifetime. Defendant who is her son is an unauthorized occupant. Rent has also not been paid. Legal notice dated 03.10.2006 (Ex.PW-1/7) had been served upon the defendant terminating his tenancy but to no avail. Present suit was thereafter filed seeking possession of the suit property as also damages.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. Issue no. 1 was decided against the plaintiff. It was held that the tenancy of Ram Sharan had not been validly terminated. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Judge was of the view that the tenancy of Khazani Devi has been validly terminated vide notice Ex. PW-1/3 dated 18.11.1996 terminating her tenancy w.e.f. 31.12.1996; the postal receipt Ex. PW-1/4 and certificate of posting Ex. PW-1/5 had been adverted to; the original A.D. Card bearing her thumb impression Ex.PW-1/6 was also noted. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Judge while dealing with issue No. 4 had noted that the bar of Section 50 of the DRCA is not applicable; the provisions of Section 2 (l) of DRCA had been expounded; the Court had held that the averment of the plaintiff was specific to the effect that Khazani Devi was the only legal heir of Ram Sharan who was financially dependent upon her; her tenancy had also been validly terminated during her lifetime; no other legal heir inherited the tenancy; the defendant was an unauthorized occupant; suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed.