DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. DILIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Court below concurrently held that at this stage plaintiff could not prove relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant, therefore, rent cannot be determined.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that approach of the Courts below was absolutely erroneous and contrary to the settled position of law and the judgment of this Court delivered in case of Om Prakash v. Gajanand and Ors., WLC (Raj) UC 58, wherein this Court has taken a view that the expression, 'land lord' used under Section 3 (iii) of the Rent Act does include owner within its ambit as the ownership to the premises cannot be subject matter of the tenancy.

(3.) I have perused the reasons given by the Courts below in the impugned order dated 22.10.01 and 07.3.03. The facts reveals that the plaintiff himself filed the suit stating therein that the premises In dispute was originally taken on rent by the firm in which the plaintiff and defendant both were tenants. Subsequently the partnership was dissolved and firm remained with the plaintiff. The plaintiff let out the part of the shop measuring 10/30 feet as that portion was lying vacant and it was decided that the defendant shall continue and this portion will be kept for the business of the defendant. Defendant thereafter in different name started cloth business. According to the plaintiff, defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,300/- as rent to the plaintiff and in fact he paid the rent Rs. 2,300/- per month by Cheque.