Arun Kumar Renu v. Sona Rani

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)

1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 22"'' December 2009, whereby the judgment and decree ofthe Trial Court dated 25"' August, 2008 was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. RSA 26/2010 2010:DHC:15500

2. Appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises. He failed to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent. After service of notice for termination of tenancy, which was duly replied by the appellant, respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent and a decree for possession was accordingly passed.

3. Appellant has formulated as many as seven questions, which, according to him, are substantial questions of law which need determination in this appeal.

4. Perusal ofthese questions indicate that, only grievance ofthe appellant is that the respondent failed to prove that she is the owner of the property in suit and therefore, no decree for possession could have been passed in her favour. It is a settled principle of law that a tenant cannot question the ownership in respect of the demised premises. It is not disputed that respondent is the landlord and wife of Shri Partap Singh. Trial Court, wdiile decreeing the suit of the respondent took into consideration various documents, like rent receipts, letters exchanged between the parties, covering letter in respect of cheque of Rs.3^630/- Ex.PW-1/5. Letter Ex.PW-1/4, has been reproduced by the Trial Court in RSA 26/2010 Page 2 of[4] its judgment. This letter is addressed to Partap Ji i.e. husband of the respondent, wherein the said cheque was enclosed. This letter also indicate that appellant did not know the exact name of Paratp Ji's wife i.e. the respondent when the cheque was sent. Appellant has not produced on record any documents, which were proved in evidence against him. It is pertinent that defence ofthe appellant was struck off from the record.

5. Under the circumstances of the case, once relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between the parties, no substantial question of law is required to be formulated for adjudication. Qua the tenant, landlord was not required to prove her ownership in respect of the suit property.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Chander Aggai-wal Vs. Hans Raj Banga", 97 (2002)DLT 564 (DB), to argue that respondent was required to prove her ownership in respect ofthe suit property. However, this judgment is of no consequence and is of no help to the appellant, hi the said case, the dispute of ownership arose because the title of the property in suit was questioned by a third person, who claimed himself to be the owner of the same.

7. Similarly, "Moot Chand Sharma Vs. Delhi Development RSA 26/2010 Page 3 of[4] Authority <6 Am." 129(2006) DLT 32 (DB), relates to a question of amendment of the plaint as DDA claimed that the land fell within another khasra and was acquired by the State Government by issuing notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, it does not lend any support to the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.

8. Since no substantial question of law is required to be formulated and the findings of the Trial Court are purely based on facts, I find no merits in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. CM Nos.2502/2010 (for stay) & 2503/2010 (for exemption)

9. With dismissal of the appeal, both these applications have become infructuous. Hence, the same stands dismissed accordingly.

FEBRUARY 09, 2010 sb

(ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE