JAGANNATH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the findings recorded by the subordinate authorities, the short question for determination in this petition is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant can arise by conduct.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the shop was taken on rent by Sita Ram (petitioner's elder brother) nearly 20 years ago who shifted to Dehra Dun within four or five years and established a separate business. The petitioner is in possession, is running the shop, is paying rent and has licence for running the shop in his name for the last 15 years. The landlord based his claim on the ground of sub-letting which was countered by the petitioner who claimed tenancy in himself. As the petitioner was a minor, the shop was taken in his elder brother's name.

(3.) IN the application filed by the landlord there is no whisper that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation. The application was founded on such letting and the landlord's bona fide requirement to be satisfied after demolition and new construction. It is well established that a court or tribunal cannot make out a new case, a case neither pleaded nor proved. The District Judge committed an error in concluding that the petitioner was not in authorised possession, a finding not only against the pleading but without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to meet it.