BALDEV RAJ Vs. VEENA CHANDYOKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER:

(2.) THE main dispute between the parties is as to whether the respondent is a tenant or a licencee in the suit property No. CC-27, Naraina, New Delhi. A suit in that regard is pending in this Court being Suit No. 276 of 1979. Apart from this suit, large number of suits were filed by the petitioner- landlord for the recovery of licence fee at the rate of Rs. 2,000.00. One of such suits was decreed on February 7, 1980, by Justice Sultan Singh and the appeal taken against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 31-10-1980. ASLP was filed against it but the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9-12-1980. It is an admitted fact that for a period prior to 1-2-1979 and subsequent to 1-3-1979 similar decrees have been passed by the Court and the payment is also made. This suit relates for the licence fee for the month of February, 1979 only. Since the matter is already gone to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has already upheld the orders, there is hardly anything that could be argued by the respondent. He, however, states that the amount claimed has been described as damages and mesne profits and he takes exception to that. This question need not be taken here because whichever way the amount is described, namely, as a licence fee or rent or damages or mesne profits the liability to pay in law for use and occupation is still there. Its exact nature will be decided in the substantive suit pending between the parties. THE learned Judge in the impugned order probably thought that till the main dispute between the parties is decided he cannot pass an order for the payment of any amount for the use of the suit premises. In fact, he had for his guidance the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court and a decree ought to have been passed. THE impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the Sub-Judge is directed to dispose of the suit in terms of this order, the earlier decision of this Court and the orders of the Supreme Court.