Mustqeem v. Mohd. Yasin

1. This regular second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below by which the suit of the respondent-landlord for possession has been decreed against the appellant/tenant under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

2. It is not disputed before this Court that the suit premises do not fall within the Delhi Rent Control Act, inasmuch as, for the village of Jafrabad there is no notification extending the application of the Delhi Rent Control Act to such area. Therefore, the civil courts will admittedly have jurisdiction. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is 2014:DHC:343 not disputed and nor is the serving of the legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating the tenancy.

3. Therefore, there is no question of fact or question of law or any substantial question of law for this appeal to be maintainable.

4. Counsel for the appellant, however, argued that plaint has not been signed by the plaintiff and it has been signed by either his son or someone else other than the plaintiff and which according to the appellant becomes clear from the trial court record. In my opinion, first of all, this plea cannot be raised in second appeal although this plea has never been raised before any of the courts below. Secondly, even if I take the case pleaded now as correct, at best there will be a procedural defect and can always be cured and could have been cured if the defect would have been pointed out by the appellant at the relevant stage. Thirdly, and more importantly, merely because of any doubt in the signatures of the plaintiff, the same will not mean that the benefit of the decree will not go to the plaintiff, but will go to somebody else.

5. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JANUARY 21, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib