SURJIT SINGH Vs. H N PAHILAJ DECD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit before the Trial Court, against order dated 20.3.1992 passed by an Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his application under Order 12 Rule 6, Order 39 Rule 10 (wrongly mentioned in the order as under Order 39 rules 1 & 2) and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code . for interim relief, i.e., for order for payment of arrears of damages w.e.f. September, 1989 at the admitted rate of rent of Rs.4,000.00 per month has been disallowed.

(2.) The respondent has died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been substituted.

(3.) Briefly, the facts are that the appellant claiming to be Landlord of the premises No.A-46, Kailash Colony, New Delhi has filed a suit against the deceased respondent (defendant in the Trial Court) for possession of demised premises and for recovery of arrears of damages/mesne profits. It was alleged that defendant was tenant since 1.11.1977 at a monthly rent of Rs.4,000.00 exclusive of water and electricity charges, his tenancy was terminated first by means of a notice dated 12.5.1989 and again by means of notice dated 3.11.1989 on 30.11.1989. Plaintiff appellant claimed damages /mesne profits from June, 1989 or in the alternative from December, 1989 at the current market rate of Rs.30,000.00 per month. Defendant/respondent filed a written statement and inter alia it was alleged that the plaintiff was only a Rent Collector of the premises, and was not the Landlord; that all the owners of the premises were necessary parties nor the tenancy has been terminated by all the owners. It was also alleged that the premises had been let out at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000.00 and Rs.1,000.00 was to be paid on account of charges for the then existing fittings and fixtures. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass the decree for possession is also disputed as according to the defendant the rent was less than Rs.3,500.00 per month and only the Rent Controller was competent to entertain petition for and pass the order of eviction. The plaintiff has denied these facts who alleged that he had let out the premises and rent was Rs.4,000.00 p.m.