RASHTARIYA PRINTING PRESS Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in order to facilitate the reference) against the judgment and order dated October 17, 1978 passed by an Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated January 14, 1972 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of convenience) for recovery of possession over the properties bearing municipal Nos. VII/3020/64/5532-24 and 5556-63, plot No. 78, G.B.Road, Delhi, and decreed the suit for recovery of possession over the abovesaid properties (hereinafter referred to as the disputed properties for the sake of brevity).

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: that the respondent herein Shri Gian Chand (plaintiff in the suit) filed a suit bearing No. 59/72 for recovery of possession over the disputed properties alluded to above. According to him, he was the owner of the abovesaid properties by virtue of a sale certificate dated August 31, 1964 issued by Custodian of Evacuee Properties. The aforementioned properties consist of a shop and mezzanine bearing municipal No. 5534/5561, and mezzanine bearing municipal No. 5562, situated at G.B.Road, Delhi, and shown in red colour in the plan annexed with the plaint. The appellant have trespassed into the said properties and occupied the same without any right, title or interest therein and without the consent of the respondent and his predecessor-in-interest. The respondent repeatedly requested the appellant to vacate the abovesaid properties and to deliver the vacant possession over the same to the respondent, but to no avail. Hence, arose the necessity for the institution of the suit.

(3.) The appellant put in contest, inter alia, on the following grounds: that the suit was under-valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. The Court did not have the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The same was not maintainable. The respondent was not the owner of the disputed property. The appellant were in possession over the abovesaid properties since 1958 having taken the same on rent from their original owner known as Mohd. Fasih-uddin. They have been paying rent since then. Besides the abovesaid properties the appellant are also in possession over a portion of the second floor of the property bearing municipal No. 5562 since 1958. They took the said property on rent from Shri Mohd. Usman who was the Managing Co-sharer of the abovesaid building. They have been paying rent in respect of the said portion to him. The appellant are a tenant therein. In any case, their possession was lawful, permissive and ripened into a tenancy by virtue of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (`the Act' for short). The suit is thus liable to be dismissed.