S AJIT SINGH Vs. RAM SWAROOPI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The question for determination is whether the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit for possession or was the suit barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the D.R.C. Act). To determine the same we have to first ascertain whether the appellant wasinducted as a tenant on a vacant piece of land or of a tin shed which would constitute "premises" within, the meaning of Section 2(i) of DRC Act. In case of former, the suit would be the remedy and in case of later the remedy would be under the D.R.C. Act.

(2.) It. must be understood at the outset that for the purpose of determining whether the tenancy was of a premises or not one must keep in mind as to what was actually let out at the initial stage. To my mind, that would be the determining factor. Supreme Court in. the case of Prabhat MIG Society V. Banwari Lal 37 (1989) DLT 439 SC(1) called out the factors which would determine as to when a property becomes premises in order to make D.R.C. Act applicable.

(3.) In order to answer the question raised above, we have to have brief facts which are relevant for the determination of that question. The appellant (defendant before the Trial Court) was inducted as a tenant by the respondent herein (plaintiff before the Trial Court). It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant was inducted as a tenant on the plot of land being Municipal No. 1/25748 situated at Church Road, Bhogal on a monthly rent of Rs. 40. He started motor repairing workshop on the said plot after raising unauthorised structure of a tin shed on the said plot. His tenancy was, therefore, terminated through a notice dated 15th February, 1979. He was called upon to vacate the said plot by the end of March, 1979, but the appellant failed to do so, hence the suit by the respondent landlord for possession against the appellant.