AJIT SINGH Vs. RAM SAROOPI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has taken exception through the presentappeal to the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court dated 24/03/1981 and the judgment and order dated 6/08/1982 passed by thelower Appellate Court, Shri S.R. Goel, Additional District Judge, whereby theappeal was dismissed.

(2.) It would be necessary to state in brief the facts of the present case which ledto the present appeal in order to appreciate fully and properly the points involvedherein. The defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for thesake of convenience) is the tenant under the plaintiff/respondent ( hereinafterreferred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) in respect of plot of landbearing Municipal No. 1/25748, situated at Church Road, Bhogal, at a monthly rentof Rs. 40.00. He has been carrying on motor-repairing workshop on the said plot.He has raised unauthorised structure of tin shed on the said plot. The tenancy ofthe appellant was terminated through a notice dated 15/02/1979. He wascalled upon through the said notice to vacate the said plot of land by the end ofMarch 1979, but to no avail. Hence arose the necessity for the institution of a suitfor possession against him.

(3.) The appellant put in contest, inter alia, on the following grounds: that hehas been a tenant for the last thirty years in respect of a tin shed constructed onthe said plot of land bearing No. 1/25748, Church Road, Bhogal, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the disputed property in order to facilitate thereference). The appellant became tenant under the respondent/plaintiff by operation of law when she purchased the said premises from the previous owner. Theappellant has always been paying the rent to the respondent in respect of the saidtin shed at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month. He has been issued rent receipts in tokenthereof. The respondent also got a rent deed executed in her favour from theappellant. The appellant has been carrying on his business of the repair of motorvehicles in the said tin shed for a number of years. He has in this connectionobtained alicence from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from time to time. Hehas also secured power connection for running the various machines installedover there under the said tin shed. It is wrong and false that the appellant has putup the tin shed in an unauthorised manner. The notice in suit is illegal and invalidand does not terminate the tenancy of the appellant in accordance with law. TheCivil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession because theappellant is a tenant in respect of the demised premises consisting of a shed and theland appurtenant thereto. The suit is barred by the provisions of Section 50 of theDelhi Rent Control Act. The suit has not been properly valued for the purposes ofCourt fee and jurisdiction. The Court fee paid is insufficient. The suit is false andfrivolous and is thus liable to be dismissed.