SATYAMAN Vs. RAM KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision against a decree of the Additional Judge, Small Causes, whereby the suit of Ram Kumar Gupta for the recovery of Rs. 500.00 as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month from 12.5.1982 to 11.10.1982 was decreed. This was with regard to a room which was admittedly under the tenancy of Satyaman defendant in property No. 1859 Kucha Khyali Ram, Mohalla Imli, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi under Ram Kumar Gupta. The case of Satyaman that he had already vacated that room and handed over its possession to Ram Kumar Gupta on 26 6.1972 when he was transferred by the bank where he was employed to Jullundur, was negatived.

(2.) The learned trial court observed that there was nothing to show that any such surrender in favour of the plaintiff had taken place. Rather the defendant was found to have taken inconsistent stands at different times about this surrender. In the present suit his case was that he had handed over the vacant possession to the plaintiff. No writing was possessed by him of this and the evidence was constituted of D.W.I. Sampat Singh who is working in the same bank where the defendant's brother is employed. The other witness of this surrender viz. Ram Narain was not produced as he was stated to be dead. Rs. 150.00 were said to have been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff then. I here was no receipt obtained of this. However, in two documents Ex. P.W. 5/3 and Ex. P.W. 5/4 which were the reply and affidavit filed by the defendant in Aug. and Oct., 1972 before the Competent Authority Slums Area, Delhi, he had mentioned that he had delivered possession of the tenancy premises to the owners jointly as he was tenant under all the owners. The competent Authority vide order dated 7-6.073 allowed the plaintiff to institute eviction proceedings against the defendant after observing that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties being admitted, it was not satisfied that the defendant had delivered back possession to the plaintiff. Rather it was observed that he was still a tenant. Another document which the trial court referred to was Ex. P. 1 which had been purported to be addressed by the defendant to the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in July 1973 where in it had been mentioned by him that the premises which was in his occupation, was owned by Gianwati, and he was tenant under her, and further that as the use and enjoyment of the same was with Gianwati he had assigned his rights in respect of the electric connection in her favour, and, therefore, there was no cause for disconnection. It was further added by him in this that he had transferred all his rights in favour of Gianwati.

(3.) The defendant who has now moved this revision, has contended that great prejudice was caused to him inasmuch as no plan was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the trial court of the room of which he was claiming rent and attributing possession with him. He had, therefore; sought during the trial that such plan should be got filed-The trial court however, did not make any direction in this regard, observing that there was no necessity to file such plan in a rent suit The defendant later moved an application under order 11 to serve interrogatories on plaintiff in Feb., 1974 in order to get clarification as to for which room rent was being claimed. This too was not allowed by the trial court. The case of the defendant is that the room which was in his possession was on the ground floor in front of the entrance, and the same is actually now in possession of the plaintiff, and not the room on the left side of the entrance was being during the trial asserted by the plaintiff. It is pointed out that the witnesses produced by the defendant have all stated how the tenanted room we in front of the plaintiff on that aspect. In the circumstances, the evidence of the witnesses in this regard was pleaded to be treated as not controverted and admitted.