BHOOMITRA SHARMA Vs. DEV RAJ SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for possession of the property in dispute and for recovery of Rs. 6,000 as damages for use and occupation thereof for the period 24th May, 1971 to 23rd November, 1971, at Rs. 1,000 per month.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that Mrs. Sushila Sultan Singh was the owner of premises bearing No. 1283, Sultan Singh Building, Main Bazar, Kashmere Gate. The same comprised one shop consisting of five rooms .a courtyard, bath and lavatory on the ground floor and residential flats on the first floor and barsatis on the second floor alongwith use of joint staircase bearing No. 1284. The said premises were let to M/s. Photo Service Co. which, according to the plaintiff, was a sole proprietary concern of late Lachhi Ram Sood as far back as 1928 at a monthly rent of Rs. 199.22P. The tenancy month commenced from 1st date of every English calendar month and ended on the last date of the same. Subsequently the plaintiff purchased the said property from the owner vide registered sale deed dated 18th June, 1970, and intimation thereof was given by the erstwhile owner Smt. Sushila Sultan Singh to Sh. Lachhi Ram Sood vide letter dated 21st June, 1970, for attomment in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became owner-landlord qua M/s. Photo Service Co. with effect from 18th June, 1970, by operation of law. The tenant paid a sum of Rs. 87/53P to the plaintiff as rent for the remaining days of the month viz. 18th June, 1970 to 30th June, 1970, by means of a cheque.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that M/s. Photo Service Co. was a sole proprietary concern of late Lachhi Ram Sood, that the entire ground floor of the premises had been let out for commercial use while rest of the premises had been let for residential purpose and the same were used as such by the deceased tenant. After purchase of the property from. Smt. Sushila Sultan Singh, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of late Lachhi Ram Sood vide notice dated 28th December, 1970, Ex. P5, calling upon him to surrender vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff by the end of 31st January. 1971 and to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 996/10P for the period 1st July, 1970 to 30th November, 1970 within two months of the receipt of the notice. The said notice was duly served upon the tenant and he even sent a reply to the same through his counsel Shri Harbans Singh Dhir, Advocate and also remitted a' sum of Rs. 996]IOP' by means of a Money Order towards the arrears of rent upto 30th November, 1970. Sh. Lachhi Ram Sood expired on 24th May, 1971. The contention of the plaintiff, therefore, is that on the termination of contractual tenancy of Sh. Lachhi Ram Sood he was in occupation of the premises in dispute merely as a statutory tenant with effect from 1st February, 1971 and after his death defendants 1 and 2, who were occupying the premises alongwith their children as licensees of Lachhi Ram Sood became mere trespassers and as such they are liable to be dispossessed. By way of amended plaint he has also impleaded defendants 4 and 5, who, according to his information, were also in unauthorised possession of the premises or part thereof and as such their possession too was wrongful and illegal. The plaintiff has further averred that vide notice dated 6th July, 1971, sent by him through his counsel, he called upon defendants 1 to 3 to surrender vacant possession of the premises within two days of the receipt of the notice failing which they would be liable to be evicted and pay a sum of Rs. 1,500 per month as damages for use and occupation of the premises in dispute.