SHAQEELA BANO Vs. HAJI REHMAN ELLAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, South District, Saket Courts partly allowing the appeal bearing RCA No.28/2012 titled Shaqeela Bano vs. Haji Rehman Ellahi whereby the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.230/2010 by the learned Civil Judge-1, South District was partly upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed a suit for possession, mesne profits/damages and permanent injunction.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff had stated in the plaint that he is the friend of the father of the appellant/defendant. The respondent claimed himself to be the owner of entire property bearing Khasra No.52, measuring 300 square yards situated at Chhattarpur, Ambedkar Colony, Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is alleged in the plaint that the father of the appellant had requested the respondent to give one room, kitchen and bathroom, etc., to the appellant for a short duration without payment of any charges. The respondent had obliged the father of the appellant and thus, the appellant was allegedly occupying the aforesaid portion of the property in the capacity of a licensee. The respondent alleged that on 10.4.2009, he requested the appellant to vacate the property in question but the latter showed her inability. Consequently, the respondent terminated the permissive use/license of the appellant on 30.5.2009 and filed a suit for possession and mesne profits/damages against her. The appellant filed the written statement on 8.4.2010 and contested the claim. The respondent also claimed the damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The appellant/defendant claimed herself to be a tenant in the property in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month. It was alleged that the husband of the appellant was employed by the respondent for managing the property in the year 1994-1995 at a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month out of which an amount of Rs. 2,800/- was being retained by the respondent on the mutual agreement that he will execute documents transferring 100 square yards of the suit property to the appellant as and when the said amount would accumulate to a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. The balance amount of Rs. 200/- was being adjusted towards payment of rent till that period of time. This was disputed by the respondent in his replication and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :