MOHD TAJ Vs. MIRAZ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2006 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 25.08.2004 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Sh. Mohd. Taj seeking recovery of possession of the suit property bearing no. 856 Haveil Azam Khan, Chitli Qabar, Delhi along with the damages and mesne profits had been dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff had averred that his father had started a factory of nickie polish and lathe in two rooms and dochatti on the ground floor of the suit property. The charge of running the factory was handed over to defendant no. 1 who was working as an apprenticeship with the father of the plaintiff. In 1974, defendant no. 1 asked the father of the plaintiff to allow him to run the said factory at his own risks and costs, which was accordingly permitted; defendant no. 1 was the licensee of the father of the plaintiff. After the death of the plaintiff s father, on 08.04.1981, plaintiff requested the defendant no. 1 to stop the user of the said factory; at request of defendant no. 1, plaintiff permitted him to continue the user; plaintiff used to open and lock the main doors of the rooms and dochatti. In March 1984, defendant no. 1 did not allow the plaintiff to put the lock over the rooms; he put his own locks, this was with a dishonest intention; plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendant no. 1 vide notice dated 06.07.1984. Defendant had failed to vacate the suit property; he was liable to stop the user of the suit premises and deliver its possession along with factory installations and pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Suit was filed.

(3.) In the written statement, preliminary objection was that the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). The defendant no. 1 was the tenant of the father of the plaintiff and in fact, the rent receipt was also issued by him in his favour. Defendant no. 1 had purchased the machinery in the factory and gave it to defendant no. 2; defendant no. 1 had all along requested the father of the plaintiff to execute the rent receipt in the name of the defendant no. 2; father of the plaintiff, however, did not execute the rent receipts in the name of defendant no. 2 but continued to consider him as his tenant; he was accepting rent of the suit premises from defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 was the lawful tenant in the suit premises and was running the machinery owned and possessed by him. Suit was liable to be dismissed.