ZIAUDDIN Vs. BANSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against a decree of Small Cause Court, Delhi, dismissing a suit for recovery of rent filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.It appears that the defendant non-petitioner was in possession of a part of theproperty of the plaintiff-petitioner. The possession was unauthorised. Thedefendant-non-petitioner agreed to convert its possession into that of a tenant byexecuting a rent note in favour of the petitioner. The rent having fallen in arrears,a suit for recovery was filed based on the rent note.

(2.) The defendant-non-petitioner in its written statement admitted the execution of the rent note. It was however further submitted that subsequent to theexecution of the rent note, one Shri Kishan Gupta set up his title in the property andthat is why rent was not paid.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court indicates that the claim hasbeen rejected for three reasons: firstly, the Trial Court was not convinced of thecircumstances under which the defendant-non-petitioner had chosen to execute the rent note in respect of the property in its possession and so in the opinion of theTrial Court mere execution of rent deed would not make the defendant-nonpetitioner a tenant and the plaintiff-petitioner a landlord; secondly, that the rentnote Ex. P2 appeared to be a highly suspicious document to the Trial Court andthirdly,that the plaintiff himself had not appeared in the witness box and hadinstead examined his son alone.