PRATAP CHAND JAIN Vs. BIBBO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This defendant's second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 20th July, 1966 by which he has dismissed the appeal and maintained the decree of the Court of first instance dated 13th August, 1965 decreeing against the defendant-appellant the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of rent/ damages for use and occupation for the period from 1st September, 1958 to 8th November, 1958 at the rate of Rs. 16 per month and for the period from 9th November, 1958 to 31st July 1961 at the rate of Rs 31 per month.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the dispute are that the appellant was a tenant in respect of the premises in dispute situated in Kucha Lattu Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi on a contract rent of Rs. 22.50 per month. Lachhoo Mal, the previous owner of the property, on 30th August, 1954, instituted a suit aginst the appellant herein for eviction and recovry of rent at the rate of Rs. 22.50 per month from 1st January, 1952 to 31st July, 1954, being the date of the termination of notice besides damages for holding over fop the month of August, 1954, amounting to Rs. 720.00. The grounds for eviction claimed in the suit were non-payment of rent in spite of notice of demand and the premises being residential, were required bona fide for the plaintiff-landlord for the .residence of himself and members of his family. These are grounds mentioned in the clause (a) and clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1952. It may be noticed that under the Act, the suits for eviction between the landlords and tenants were filed in ordinary civil Courts and the change in law excluding the jursdiction of civil Courts in respect of 443 eviction and fixation of standard rent etc. and conferring it on the Controller has been brought about by the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958. However, on 8th November, 1954, after the filing of the written statement, the matter was compromised .and a decree for eviction was passed against the present appellant, but three years' time with an option of one further year was allowed to the appellant to vacate. A decree for payment of Rs. 580.00 was also passed which was ordered to be paid out of the amount deposited by the present appellant on account of rent upto 30th November, 1954. It was also ordered that the standard rent of the premises would be Rs, 16 per month. Reference to the terms of the compromise would,be made in detail hereinafter. Later Lachchoo Mal on 20th July, 1956 (vide copy Exhibit H. 3) made a gift of the property in dispute to his wife (respondent in this appeal) and the appellant .attorned to her. It appears that the decree for eviction has not been executed probably on account of the bar created by the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, but we are not concered with that matter at the moment. However, in order to recover the rent and damages for use and occupation, the respondent herein instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal on 31st August, 1951 on the allegations that the respondent was the owner of the property in dispute and on 8th November, 1954, a decree for eviction had been passed against the appellant and four years time had been given to him to vacate but he had not vacated and that the occupation of the/defendant subsequent to the decree was contumacious and unauthorised and therefore, he was liable to pay damages and compensation for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. The respondent herein claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 16 per month from 1st September, 1958 to 8th November, 1958 and for the subsequent period claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 40 per month from 9th November, 19,58 to 31sf July, 1961.

(3.) The appellant contested the suit and urged that he was still a tenant under the respondent and his occupation was not contumacious and unauthorised and as such he was not liable to pay damages for use and occupation and the suit for recovery of damages for use and occupation was not maintainable. The title of the respondent to the property in dispute was also denied. It is significant to notice that it has not been urged in the original written statement that the decree for eviction passed against the appellant in the previous suit was a nullity or was without jurisdsction but the same was allowed to be raised with the leave of the Court in the amended written statement dated 18th January, 1963. A replication to the written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent in which she maintained that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Fellow- issues were framed:-