BRIJENDER KUMAR Vs. LACHHMAN DAS DUGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIJENDER Kumar Appellant in this Court, is the landlord of a premises bearing No. XVI/8254, Rohtak, Road, Karol Bagh; New Delhi. Lachhman Das, since deceased' was a tenant in the said premises. On the 11th October, 1959, the landlord served the tenant with a notice terminating the tenancy. On the 20th May, 1960, the Appellant filed an application for ejectment of the Respondent from the said premises. The Respondent during the pendency of the appeal in this Court.

(2.) THE ejectment was initially sought on two grounds, namely, (i) the tenant had acquired vacant possession of a residence in gali Shatra, Hauz Kazi, Delhi, and (ii) he had sublet the premises without consent of the landlord. The second ground was not pressed at any stage of the proceedings, and that is why Mr. K.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has rightly confined his arguments to the first point. Mr. Jain urges that the judgment of the Tribunal stands vitiated because of an incorrect approach on a point of law. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had been in possession of the premises alleged to have been acquired by him for residence since the 27th December, 1952, and, therefore, he could not be said to have acquired vacant 'possession of a residence, after taking the premises in dispute on lease on the 1st April, 1958.

(3.) MR . Jain then raises another question. He says that the tenancy, being a statutory tenancy, no interest could pass to the heirs of the tenant on his death, with the result that the Appellant has now become entitled to recovery of possession of the premises. The Appellant made an application to this Court on the 11th August, 1965, being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2681 -D of 1965, which was allowed by this Court "subject to all just exceptions" on the 17th September, 1965. It is said on behalf of the Appellant that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this change in circumstances should be taken notice of by this Court and a decision given in his favour that, the statutory tenancy having come to : an end, no right devolves on the heirs of the tenant. It is also said that, in any case, he may be allowed to amend his application for ejectment to enable him to urge this additional ground. So far as the first branch of this argument is concerned, it is difficult to decide the question in this appeal. Whether or not the tenancy was a statutory one and, if not, whether or not it was properly terminated, will need investigation into and determination of fact, which it is not possible to do in this appeal. It is also not possible to allow amendment of the application,: because, by introducing this plea, the Appellant would be introducing entirely a new cause of action and the subject -matter of the dispute would also be completely changed. Even the forum for deciding the suit for possession on the above ground may be different.