(1.) This regular second appeal has been brought against the judgment and decree dated 22nd of November 1979 passed by Mohd. Sharnim, Additonal District Judge, Delhi, by which he has dismissed the appeal filed by Shri Sobha Singh, appellant, against the judgment and decree dated 5th of March 1979 passed by Shri Satnam Singh, Sub Judge Delhi, by which he decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant- appellant for recovery of possession of plot bearing No. XVI/8A/30, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi, after removal of the super-structure. A decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1, 384.62 was also passed.
(2.) Facts of the case are that this property vested in the custodian and that the petitioner had occupied this plot and had been granted a lease of this plot for a period of three years at the rate of Rs 37.25 per mensem as per Lease Deed a copy of which is Ex. PD. This Lease Deed is dated 23rd of January 1950. Clause 3 of the said Lease Deed reads as under :
(3.) It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner had raised the superstructures over the said plot and continued to pay the said amount to the custodian even after the expiry of three years' period. The plot in question was sold by the Managing Officer for a consideration of Rs. 48.500.00 on 3rd of August 1959 to the respondent who was given provisional possession on 2nd of March 1962 with effect from 24th of December 1960. The respondent instituted the suit for possession of the said plot after serving a notice terminating the contractual tenancy of the appellant. It is not in dispute before me that the appellant was the tenant under the custodian and he became a tenant under the respondent and a valid legal notice terminating the contractual tenancy of the appellant stood served. The plea taken by the appellant in contesting the suit was that, in fact. premises had been let out to him and thus the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was applicable and that the respondent should have filed eviction proceedings against him. Plea was also taken regarding the suit being not properly valued for the purposes of valuation and jurisdiction. This appeal has been admitted only on two points which arc as under: