D. P. WADHWA, J. (0ral)

( 1 ). This is defendant s appeal in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession against him. By impugned judgment dated 27 February 1991 the defendant was asked to vacate the property and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The property consist of two rooms and a bath room in the annexe of the property bearing No. C-92, Maharani-Bagh, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the owner of the property. There is no dispute on that. He said that be inducted the defendant in the suit premises as a licensee for a period of one year from the beginning of 1983 and thereafter on account of some tragedy in his house the defendant was allowed to continue in the premises for some more time. The present suit was filed on 30 March 1989. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that he was a tenant in the premises and the suit was barred under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. WHETHER the defendant is an unauthorised occupant in respect of the suit premises as alleged in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the defendant is a tenant in respect of the suit premises and the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act ? OPD 3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for. the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession as claimed in the plaint ? OPP 5 Relief.

( 2 ). IN support of his case the plaintiff examined himself and other witness,, namely, Rajan Khanna, a neighbour. In his statement the plaintiff did say that the defendant was not his tenant and was a mere licensee and had no right to continue to remain in possession of the premises in question. As far as the plaintiff is concerned that was enough for him to prove on this issue, though the defendant could have shown that the statement was not correct and then further led evidence to show that he was in fact a tenant. Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the case set up by the plaintiff could not be true in the circumstances of the case in as much as when. the defendant was inducted he was given exclusive possession of the premises and the defendant is no relation of the plaintiff and in normal circumstances nobody would have given an immovable property on licence to a person like the defendant. The plaintiff had set up his case that this portion of the property was earlier with one Mr. Gill along with the first floor of the house, and from the time Mr. Gil) vacated the plaintiff came in occupation of the first floor and the suit property remained vacant. Then on the request of his friend Dr. Atma Ram he allowed one Shrikant to occupy the suit property as a licensee. The defendant used to. come to Shrikant and that is bow the plaintiff got acquainted with him. On vacating the suit premises by Shrikant the defendant approached the plaintiff and asked him to allow him to occupy the suit premises for a short duration. In this case as set up by the plaintiff, Mr. Chopra says, that this could not be true. He said that the plaintiff himself was a Professor in the University and now a pensioner and his only income was salary and the rental income. Mr. Chopra said in the circumstances the plaintiff could not have allowed the defendant to occupy the premises merely as a licensee and that too without payment of any licence fee. Mr. Chopra may appear to be correct to an extent but that is not enough. But then defendant himself has to prove his tenancy rights. Mr. Chopra has led stress on the fact that the plaintiff has not brought in the witness box Shrikant, or even Dr. Atma Ram, who is since deceased. The fact remains that the plaintiff clearly stated that be was having indifferent health and then his young and only son died in August 1984 and be was also enbroiled in litigation with his tenant in the. main building and that he, therefo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document