M. S. A. Siddiqui, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, directed against the judgment and decree dated 15. 7. 1997 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, pertains to a contest between the respondent No. 1/plaintiff seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises after termination of the licence, on the one hand and the appellant defendant No. 2 on the other wanting to continue as a tenant without being evicted therefrom.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint, defendant No. 1 was allowed to occupy the barsati floor of the property bearing No. F-9, South Extension, 11, Ring Road, New Delhi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the suit premises ) as a licensee as he was friend of her son, who is presently living abroad. Defendant No. 2 being a friend of the defendant No. 1, was a frequent visitor to her house. In the month of May, 1991, the defendant No. 2 came to reside with the defendant No. 1 for a week after obtaining oral permission from the plaintiff. In the meantime the defendant No. 1 vacated the suit premises but the defendant No. 2 avoided to vacate the same on one protext or the other. However, in August, 1991 the plaintiff terminated his licence and asked him to vacate the suit premises. Instead of vacating suit premises, the defendant No. 2 surreptitiously started making come unauthorised additions and alterations in the suit premises, which evoked objections from the plaintiff. Incensed by this, the defendant No. 2. calming himself to be a tenant of the suit premises, issued the notice dated 2-7-92 calling upon the plaintiff to return the lease agreements alleged to have been executed by him in her favoursite get the lease deed registered for a period of three years and to issue rent receipts for the rent paid upto June, 1992. It was pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 and he did not pay even a single penny to the plaintiff by way of rent of the suit premises. After termination of the licence, the defendant No. 2, who did not vacated the suit premises, remained in possession thereof as a trespasser. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 7500. 00 by way of mesne profits.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 has filed his written statement in support of the plaintiff s claim. The defendant No. 2 resisted the suit and in the written statement, apart from raising other objections regarding under valuation of the claim, maintainability of the suit in the present form and jurisdiction of the Civil court to entertain the suit, it was asserted that the defendant No. 2 was inducted as a tenant vide lease agreement dated 28. 2. 1991 which stipulated rate of rent at Rs. 1100. 00 per month (Rs. 500. 00 for the suit premises and Rs. 600. 00 for fixtures and fittings ). On the same day, the defendant No. 2 also paid a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 to the plaintiff, which was to be adjusted towards rent of the suit premises, and the defendant No. 2 was also assured by the plaintiff for renewal of the lease for a further period of 3 years. However, in the middle of February, 1992, the plaintiff obtained the lease agreement dated 28. 2. 91 from the defendant No. 2 on the pretext of its renewal for a period of 3 years as agreed earlier and did not return the same to the defendant no. 2. It was also pleaded that the defendant No. 2 had paid rent to the plaintiff upto June, 1992.

( 4 ) THE trial court after framing the issues and after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant No. 2 was a licensee and he had failed to prove that he was a tenant of the suit premises. The trial court also held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directed the defendant No. 2 to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and further ordered to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 1100. 00 per month from June 1991 till the date of delivery of possession. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document