RAM NATH CHITKARA Vs. DEWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10-2-1984 the plaintiff filed a suit for cancelling agreement of lease dated 9-6-1983 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the said agreement in any legal proceedings. The plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint. By the amended plaint dated 6-11-1984 the plaintiff prayed for a decree for declaration that the agreement of lease dated 9-6-1983 having been brought about by fraud of the defendant was void and unenforceable and did not create relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties The defendant in the written statement raised various objections One of the objections was that the uit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. By judgment dated 1-8-1985 the trial court held that the suit was barred and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed an appeal and the Senior Sub-Judge, held that the finding of the trial court that the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not correct, that the judgment and order of the trial court amounted only to rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code which was not appealable under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower appellate court thus dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has filed the second appeal.

(3.) Briefly the facts as alleged in the amended plaint dated 611-1984 are that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of part of the premises No.5377/VII, 58. G.B. Road Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 34.50 shown red in the plan; the plaintiff had obtained an order of eviction in case No. 356 on 1979 on 9-8-1982 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi; the defendant's appeal against the eviction order was dismissed b> the Rent Control Tribunal as well as by the High Court. The plaintiff further alleged that earlier there was on order of eviction against the defendant and his second appeal against that order of eviction was pending in the High Court being S.A O. No. 267 of 1978 and in order to wriggle out of the two orders of eviction, the defendant with mala fide, dishonest and fraudulent motives approached the plaintiff with a promise, to enhance the rent to Rs. 400.00 per month in case afresh agreement of lease was executed; the defendant fraudulently and dishonculy induced the plaintiff to enter into an agreement of lease dated 9th June, 1983 The plaintiff pleaded various grounds for holding that the agreement of lease dated 9-6-1983 was a void instrument. The plaintiff thus prayed for a decree for declaration that the agreementofleasedated9-6-1983havingbeenbroughtabout by fraud was void and unenforceable and did not create relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.