V K SAXENA Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal, arising out of a suit for possession, damages, mesne profits and injunction, decreed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The facts leading to the institution of the suit are few and may be summarised as under:

(2.) Single storeyed house No. C-24, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi was owned by Sardar Gian Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent. The said house was let out to Escorts Ltd., who had allowed the appellant, one of its employees to occupy the same. After the appellant left the services of the employer company, he was allowed to continue in occupation of a part of the premises comprising one drawing-cum-dining room, two bedrooms with attached bathrooms, kitchen and varandah on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/-. The terms of the tenancy so created in favour of the appellant were set out in a lease deed executed on 16th December, 1981. The lease deed, inter alia, stipulated that the lessor had retained with himself one room on the ground floor and the mezzanine floor and that he was entitled to use the same or let the same out to any other tenant to which the appellant would have no objection. The lease was meant to be for a period of three years commencing 1st December, 1081. It is common ground, however, that the tenancy was extended from time to time upto 31st March, 1995, whereafter an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by the owner Sardar Gian Singh for the eviction of the appellant. The said petition was, however, dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller vide judgment dated 14th October, 1997.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the owner preferred a revision petition before this Court, which too failed and was dismissed by order dated 20th September, 2000. Shortly thereafter came the suit for possession, damages, mesne profits and injunction filed by the respondent in the year 2002. The plaintiff claimed ownership on the basis of a gift deed executed by Sardar Gian Singh in his favour. The plaintiff's case in the plaint was that the entire house excluding the portion mentioned in Clause 12 of the lease agreement had been let out to the defendant-appellant and that the defendant had illegally and without any lawful justification broken the locks of the said portion and occupied the same. According to the plaintiff, no tenancy was ever created in favour of the appellant in so far as the said portion of the property was concerned. The plaintiff in that backdrop claimed a decree for possession of the disputed portion of the property and for recovery of damages/compensation for unauthorised use and occupation thereof.