HANS RAJ BATRA Vs. KALKA PRASAD AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.9.1999 whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits has been decreed against the appellant/defendant no.1.

(2.) THE appellant became a tenant with respect to a piece of land measuring 1200 sq. yds situated in Khasra No. 1283/67/2 of Mauja Kilokri, Mathura Road, New Delhi. THE original Khasra number was Khasra No. 67. By a rent note dated 19.12.1956, the appellant was let out this piece of land by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant came into possession of the land through this rent note dated 19.12.1956 (Ex.PW1/16). THE learned trial court has held that though a part of land was acquired by the government, however, to the extent the land continues to be in possession of the appellant/defendant no1./tenant, because the government does not become the owner of the same since possession was not taken although the land was sought to be acquired. A government becomes the owner of land under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only when possession is taken. THE learned counsel for the appellant also does not dispute that if the ownership of the land is not taken over by the government, the respondents/plaintiffs no.1 to 4 would be the owners of the subject land.

(3.) THE second argument that the suit is barred by limitation under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act, 1958. Firstly, this was not a ground which was raised either in the trial court or has been raised in the grounds of appeal in this court. In any case, since what was let out to the appellant was land, there is no question of protection under the Control Rent Act because the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is only with respect to premises i.e. constructed structures and not with respect to land. Merely because, a tenant constructs on the land leased out to him would not make the tenancy fall within the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. THE tenant is at liberty to remove the structures in case he wants to and as constructed by him on the suit land. Also, there is nothing appearing on the record of the trial court as to that these constructions were made with the consent of the landlord, and on the contrary, counsel for the respondents states that at no point of time any consent was given to the appellant and the appellant has not proved any such consent before the trial court. This argument is also rejected.