HANUMAN DUTT BAJPAI Vs. BUDHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-7-1982 passed by the ADJ, Delhi in RCA No. 97 of 1981 arising out of judgment dated 30-4-1981 passed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi in C.S. No. 557/74.

(2.) It is undisputed that the plaintiff/appellant is the owner of the plot of land measuring 200 sq. yards of Khasra No., 11 of Mauza Chauhan Bangar illaqa Shahdra, Delhi now known as B-17, Brahmpuri, Harijan Colony, Gonda, Shahdra, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the disputed property). The disputed property has been assessed by the Municipal Corporation, Delhi for property tax. The defendant/respondent had been in occupation of the disputed property since 6-4-1969. The receipts (Ex. P-X/1, Ex P-X/2, Ex P-X/3, Ex P-X/4, Ex P-X/5) and the letter dated 6-4-1969 (Ex. P-X/6) bear signatures of the defendant.

(3.) Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code are that by an agreement dated 6-4-1969, the appellant employed the respondent to look after his nursery, which was being maintained by him on the disputed property. Respondent's remuneration was fixed at Re 1.00 per month and he was permitted to occupy the disputed property on the terms and conditions enumerated in the said agreement. In December, 1973, the appellant noticed that the respondent had been using the disputed property for carrying on business of milk dairy and he, therefore, orally terminated the licence. Thereafter, appellant served the registered notice (Ex DW2) on the respondent revoking the licence and asking him to vacate the disputed property. Appellant's suit was resisted by the respondent on the ground that he was in occupation of the disputed property as the appellant's tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00 and as such the suit was barred under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was averred that the documents produced by the appellant were fabricated on blank papers got signed by the respondent on the pretext that they were required for the purpose of income tax. The Trial Court held that the respondent was only a licensee and not a tenant and decreed the suit. In appeal filed by the respondent, the learned Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment held, on an analysis of the facts and circumstances, that the respondent had been in occupation of the disputed property as the appellant's tenant and as such the appellant's suit for possession was barred under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. He also held that the documents produced by the appellant are mere camouflage to avoid rigours of the tenancy law. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the appellant's suit was dismissed.