RANJEET SINGH KALRA Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord, impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 26.11.2014 and the First Appellate Court dated 30.11.2015; by which the appellant's/plaintiff's suit for possession and damages has been dismissed by holding that the appellant/plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and that the suit property is owned by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that he let out a shop bearing no. RZ-631, Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005 to the deceased husband of respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1. The deceased tenant was the father of the other respondent nos. 2 to 5/defendant nos. 2 to 5. Appellant/plaintiff pleaded that the suit property was let out at Rs.3,500.00 per month in terms of the lease deed dated 22006. The rent which was initially Rs.3,500.00 per month was increased to Rs.4,000.00 per month with effect from March, 2006 and another lease deed was executed between the appellant/plaintiff and the tenant Sh. Balwinder Singh on 1.3.2006. The appellant/plaintiff pleaded that both the lease deeds were for a period of eleven months, and the husband of the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 Sh. Balwinder Singh failed to pay the rent of the premises with effect from April, 2006. The appellant/plaintiff therefore terminated the tenancy by serving a legal notice dated 112006 and thereafter filed the subject suit for possession. Before filing of the suit the tenant Sh. Balwinder Singh expired on 1.9.2007 and therefore the suit was filed against the respondents/defendants who are the legal heirs of Sh. Balwinder Singh being his widow and children.

(3.) The written statement filed by the respondents/defendants was of blanket denial of the averments of the plaint. The respondents/defendants also denied that the appellant/plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and it was pleaded that it was the DDA who was the owner of the suit property. Respondents/defendants had pleaded that appellant/plaintiff was not the land lord and the deceased Sh. Balwinder Singh was not the tenant. As per the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants the appellant/plaintiff used to "extort" moneys from Sh. Balwinder Singh. The suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.