MOHD UMAR Vs. INSHALLA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is concluded by a finding of fact and must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

(2.) Mst. Inshalla Bi instituted a suit for the possession of the premises in question and the defence raised was that the defendant Mohammad Umar was a tenant in respect of such premises. The true position, as disclosed in the pleadings, is that the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of a piece of property alleging that the defendant was a tenant of the ground floor only. A short time prior to the institution of the suit, round about the second week of May, 1964, the defendant was alleged to have occupied the first floor illegally without any right and it was for the eviction of the defendant from this part of the premises that the suit was instituted Mohammad Umar as observed earlier, pleaded that he was a tenant of the first floor as well. The trial Court came to the conclusion that Mohammad Umar was a tenant of the entire building and on this finding, the court also proceeded to hold that it had no jurisdiction to grant a decree for possession. Such a decree apparently could on be granted by the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the material on the record reversed the conclusion of the Court of first instance and held that Mohammad Umar had not established his tenancy over the portion on the first floor of the building Having so held the Court granted a decree for possession to the plaintiff.