TASLEEM Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 1st October, 2014 whereby Jagdish Chander was permitted to lead additional evidence by the Appellate Court on the issue of ownership of the suit property, Tasleem prefers the present petition.

(2.) A brief exposition of facts is that Jagdish Chander the respondent/plaintiff herein filed a suit for possession and damages against Tasleem, the defendant/petitioner herein in respect of suit property No.6612, Neemwala Chock, Nabi Karim, New Delhi stating that Tasleem was inducted as a tenant by father of Jagdish in a single room shop on the ground floor and a room over it on a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- and Rs. 500/- respectively exclusive of all other charges. After the death of father of Jagdish his mother used to collect the rent. Tasleem is a persistent defaulter and keeps on postponing the payment of rent on one pretext or another. Jagdish being one of the co-owner of the Suit property being the legal heir and successor of late Lachhman Das was thus competent to demand the rent. A demand notice was sent on 6th November, 2001 which was duly served, however in the reply Tasleem denied the landlord-tenant relationship. Tasleem stated that he was the absolute owner of the property by virtue of certain documents executed by Smt. Basanti Devi in his favour for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Thus Jagdish instituted the suit. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 25th January, 2010 on the ground that Tasleem has been able to prove on record that there is no relationship of landlord tenant between Jagdish and Tasleem. In the appeal filed by Jagdish the learned Additional District Judge remanded back the matter to the learned Trial Court to be decided again in the light of the observations made by the learned ADJ. The relevant portions of Paras 10 & 11 of the judgment of learned ADJ are as under:

(3.) A review application filed by Jagdish was also dismissed by the learned ADJ vide order dated 5th July, 2012. Before the learned Senior Civil Judge Jagdish moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the co-owners which was disallowed vide order dated 2nd September, 2013 for the reason that the order remanding back the case did not direct to implead the other co-owners/ LRs of late Shri Laxman Dass as a parties. After dismissal of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the suit was again dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 29th October, 2013. Though all the issues were decided in favour of Jagdish, however as the other legal heirs who were the co-owners in the suit property were not impleaded it was held that Jagdish could not prove that he was entitled for the relief of decree of possession as prayed for as he has not been able to prove the ownership.