JONDA RAM Vs. CH SHADDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule directed against an order passed by Mr. Ram Lal, Additional Judge, Small cause Court, Delhi, on 31-3-1951 holding that the property in dispute did not come within the definition of the word 'premises' as defined in the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act.

(2.) ON 6-6-1950, the applicant Jonda Ram applied for fixation of standard rent. In para. 2 of his petition he stated that the property which had been taken on rent had a katcha wall which due to rains had fallen down, in parts. The plan also shows that the property in dispute is surrounded on the East by a wall with a gate in it and on the other side there are houses. The question is whether this property comes within the definition of the word 'premises' in the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara rent Control Act, In Section 2 'premises' is defined: "2 In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, (a) * * ' * * " (b) 'premises' means any building or part of a building which is or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, and includes- (i) the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such, building or part of a building, and (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for' use in such building or part of a building, but does not include a room in a dharamsala, hotel or lodging house. "

(3.) KHACHHERU, witness No. 3 for the applicant, stated that the applicant was a tenant only of the vacant site. Reading the evidence of witness No. 3 for the applicant and the statement of the applicant in his application, it appears to me that what was taken on rent by the petitioner was nothing more than a vacant site which has houses on three sides and a broken wall on the fourth. Can it be said that this is anything more than just a vacant site? Witness No. 3 for the applicant has stated that the applicant had taken a vacant site.