HARISH CHANDER NARULA Vs. PURSHOTAM LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 21st December, 1999 whereby the suit of the Appellants/Plaintiffs for possession, mesne profits, recovery of money and mandatory injunction was dismissed by holding that the Respondent/Defendant was a tenant of a plot with built up portion and therefore the Respondent/Defendant being a tenant of a premises/building, had protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against eviction. I may note that the original Respondent Sh. Purshotam Lal Gupta has expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The reference in this judgment to the Respondent/Defendant would imply a reference to the original Respondent/Defendant or his legal heirs as per the context.

(2.) The only issue argued before the Trial Court, and which was also argued before this Court, was whether what was let out to the Respondent/Defendant was only a plot or at the very best a plot with a temporary structure/shed/Khoka so as to be or not to be a "premises" within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Respondent/Defendant had contended that the structure which exists amounts to a building and was therefore premises within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(i) and therefore the Respondent/Defendant was a tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as DRC Act). The property in question has an area of 900 sq. feet forming part of an open plot of land of 412 sq. yds. at the Main Road of II-F, Block Corner, opposite Dua Travels, Rampur Market, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi.

(3.) There is an admitted document in the Trial Court record being the partnership deed entered into between the parties dated 30.4.1975, Ex.PW1/2. The contention of the Respondent/Defendant before the Trial Court was that this was a deed of partnership only in name, and in reality, through this document a relationship of landlord and tenant was created. A reference to this admitted document shows that what was let out to the Respondent/Defendant was only a plot of land. This has been very clearly mentioned in this document at page 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Defendant contended that there was an earlier document also between the parties of the year 1974 when the tenancy commenced and therefore this document cannot be looked into. I have failed to understand this argument because the Respondent/Defendant has admitted this document and argued that through this document, the parties did enter into a contractual relationship, which however was not of partnership, but only of a landlord and tenant. Once the document, Ex.PW1/2, is looked into, it becomes clear that what was let out to the Respondent/Defendant was only a plot of land. If what was let out to the Respondent/Defendant is only a plot of land, the same would not fall within the expression "premises" under Section 2(i) of the DRC Act, 1958. The Trial Court has committed a grave illegality and perversity in ignoring this admitted document between the parties.