RAGHUNATH SAHAI Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the judgment dated 28-1-1980 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant against the eviction order was also dismissed.

(2.) The short point canvassed in this appeal by the learned counsel, for the appellant, is that the respondent ceased to be the owner of the property in dispute as the same was acquired and vested in Delhi Development Authority. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Rent Controller as also the Rent Control Tribunal have recorded the finding that the land which had been acquired has not been connected with the disputed property and as such the respondent continues to be the owner. Ordinarily, this is a question of fact and not open to second appeal in view of section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which specifically states that a second appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. All the same I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have looked into the entire evidence, both oral and documentary.

(3.) The ownership of the respondent is based on a sale deed in his favour which is Ex. AX and supplements sale deed Ex. AY. According to the pleadings and the evidence of the respondent, the property was acquired in 1948. The sale deed Ex. AX mentions that the vendor Narsingh Dass who sold the property to the respondent, became owner by a sale deed in his favour registered on 13-7-1946. The property acquired belonged to Jagan Nath son of Budha Mal. The said Jagan Nath does not figure anywhere as the previous owner from 1946 was Narsingh Dass who sold the property to the respondent. Mr. Nayyar the learned counsel for the appellant states that in fact the property was acquired in 1941 and not in 1948 but there is no such pleadings on the record and the evidence is also to the effect that it was acquired in 1948. He wishes to produce some award of 1941 at this stage for which neither there is any application nor any ground to allow the same. The appellant, in fact, had filed an application underorder 41 Rule 27 for production of additional evidence before the Rent Control Tribunal. The application was allowed on concession by the learned counsel for the respondent and the documents filed by the appellant, were taken into consideration. None of those documents also help the appellant in any manner.