BAL KISHAN Vs. RAMJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the owner of the House No. 639, Aruna Lane, Shivaji Road, Behind Azad Market, Delhi. He had filed a suit against the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 1440.00 as damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month on the ground that the respondent was occupying one room on the second floor with effect from August, 1968 as a trespasser. Before going any further it is necessary to mention a few facts pertaining to an earlier litigation.

(2.) It appears that in respect of the same room the appellant herein had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 720.00 against one Suraj Narain. In that suit, filed in the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, it was alleged by the father of the appellant that the room had been let to Suraj Narain at a monthly rent of Rs. 20.00 and he had not ''paid the rent from 1-9-1967 to 31-8-1970. Suraj Narain, in his written statement, bad pleaded that he was not a tenant. According to him Ramji Lal, the respondent in this case was the tenant. Ramji Lal was stated to be the brother-in-law of Suraj Narain. The Judge, Small Cause Court, by his judgment dated 22nd December, 1971 came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that Suraj Narain was his tenant. The finding of fact, recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court, was that the tenant of that portion of the demised premises was Ramji Lal.

(3.) As already mentioned in the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1440.00 , the allegation was that the room on the second floor had been illegally occupied by Ramji Lal in August, 1968 In the written statement it was contended by Ramji Lal that he was a tenant of this room. According to Ramji Lal, be was also a tenant of a portion on the ground floor of the house, about which there is no dispute in this case. The rent for the premises was stated to be Rs 10.00 per month. Reference was also made in the written statement to the suit which had been filed by the appellant herein against Suraj Narain. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint.