RAJNIDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. KHARAITI LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 10.4.1979 by which the appeal of the respondent was allowed and the suit of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant, Shri H.S. Sharma, hied a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent on the allegations that he was the owner and landlord of the premises N o. 26, Faiz Bazar, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110006. That on 2.3.1960 he accepted the respondent as a Manager in his tailoring business which was later put under the name and style of M/s. Upkeep Tailors, who agreed to work as SUCH on me terms and conditions given in his undertaking of inc same date. That with effect from 2.3.1960 the defendant Was permitted to use the shop on the ground floor of the building No. 26, Faiz Bazar, Delhi marked red in the plan attactied, only to manage the plaintiff's tailoring business as a licensee. he has been in possession thereof in the said capacity ever since. Because of the repeated contraventions of the terms and conditions undertaken to be performed by. the respondent, the plaintiff in the month of April, 1 1966 orally terminated the agreement and thereby the license granted to him. On 4.6.1966 a notice in writting was also given to him. The respondent was asked repeatedly to remove himself from the shop but he failed to do so. Under these premises a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove himself from the shop was claimed.

(3.) The suit was resisted on behalf of the respondent. In the written statement the plea taken was that the respondent was in actual physical possession of the property as a tenant under Shri H.S. Sharma on monthly rent of Rs. 30.00 . That the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was also pleaded that the suit was improperly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. Regarding the undertaking it was pleaded that the undertaking was neither legal nor valid, hence could not be relied upon and in fact it was never acted upon. The respondent was never appointed as Manager of the tailoring business. The alleged undertaking was secured from him in order to circumvent the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondent started his own tailoring business in the name of M/s. Upkeep Tailors. Shri H.S. Shrama had absolutely nothing to do with the business and he was regularly paid the rent and electricity charges. Shri H.S. Sharma stopped accepting the rent from him from June, 1966.