LAWS(DLH)-1979-2-10

DAYAL SINGH Vs. SHANTI SWAROOP

Decided On February 13, 1979
DAYAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
SHANTI SWAROOP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CR 119/76 and CR 69/78 arising out of 2 suits by Dr. Shanti Swaroop Saini for recovery of arrears of rent. The one suit relates to (he period 9.10.1970 to 31.8.1973 and the other suit relates to the period from 1.9.1973 to 31.31976. The judgment and decree dated: 10.1.1978 in the second suit, being subject' matter of C. R. 69 of 1978, is based entirely on the judgment and decree dated 5.11.75, being subject matter of C. R. 119 of 1976.

(2.) Dr. Shanti Swaroop Saini. (plaintiff) in the first suit claimed a sum of Rs 500 as arrears of rent from 1.9.70 to 31.8.73 alleging that Shri Dayal Singh, defendant is a tenant in a shop of the premises bearing Municipal No. 796, Kamra Bangash, Darya Ganj, New Delhi on a rent of Rs. 25 per month since 1949. One of the preliminary objections in the written statement is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the tenant in the premises from 1.4.4966 is Sardar Surian Singh, son of Dayal Singh The entire evidence is comprised of Shant. Swaroop, plaintiff. Surjan Singh, son of thei Defendant, and that of Dayal Singh. The Judge, Small Causes Court in its judgment dated 5.11.75 came to the conclusion that Dayal Singh is the tenant under the plaintiff in suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 75 and decreed the suit as prayed.

(3.) In arriving at this finding, the learned Judge expressed on three counts. It was observed firstly that the defendant has not produced any document showing that he had surrended the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff and that a fresh rent agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff and Surjan Singh, secondly, it is settled law that mere payment of rent by a person does not create relationship of landlord and tenant between them and thirdly, it is essential to prove that an agreement has been arrived at between the parties to this effect and there is no writing that the plaintiff has entered into a fresh agreement of tenancy with Surjan Singh, son of Dayal Singh.