LAWS(DLH)-1994-5-82

SAMI YAR KHAN Vs. USMAN KHAN

Decided On May 24, 1994
SAMI YAR KHAN Appellant
V/S
USMAN KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal No.9 of 1975 which arises out of the suit of the plaintiff/appellant filed in the trial court for possession of the property, as defined in the amended plaint.

(2.) The averments made in the amended plaint are that the appellant is a tenant of House No. 316, Ward No. XI, situated in Gali Garhiya, Bazar Matia Mahal,Jama Masjid, Delhi, since about 1932 and he has been in possession of the said house continuously since then. The appellant has been a tenant under the original Muslim owner till partitionin 1947 and thereafter he became tenant under the Custodian of Evacuee Property from September, 1947, and when this property was transferred to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, he has become a tenant of the Corporation.

(3.) It is alleged that the respondent is the husband of real niece of the appellant (brother's daughter) and is a resident of Aligarh. The brother of the appellant (Shri Khud Yar Khan) requested the appellant to allow the respondent and his wife to live with the appellant as his guest fora few days on the pretext that he had an inadequate living space and could not accommodate the respondent and his wife and also that the said Khud Yar Khan did not want to keep the respondent in his house. It is further stated that the said brother of the appellant and the respondent 566 assured that they would take some other house on rent within a month or so and then will shift to that place and failing that they will return to their native place. The appellant believing the respondent and the said Khud Yar Khan and in view of their close relationship, allowed the respondent to come and live with him foKr some days without any charges or return. Even earlier, the first wife of Khud Yar Khan, namely, Zora Begum who was also daughter of the paternal aunt of the appellant, had been allowed by him to live in the premises. The wife of the respondent was the daughter of said Zora Begum and the respondent, from time to time, came to Delhi to stay th said Zora Begum and the appellant. It is reiterated in the plaint that the permanent place of residence of the appellant and his wife was at Usmanpura,Aligarh. The appellant realised with passage of time that the respondent and his wife were in no mood to leave the house and the appellant's brother Khud Yar Khan was actively conniving and colluding, with the respondent. The respondent then stealthily tried to become tenant of some portion of the appellant's house and made false representation to this effect before the Municipal Authorities and the said Authorities rejected the contention.