Back
Delhi High Court
PRITAM SINGH SAFEER
Jawala Singh - Appellant
Versus
Prem Singh - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No.149-D of 1966
Decided On : 03/29/1972
TENANCY - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - LOCUS STANDI OF PLAINTIFF - ADMISSIONS IN APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PLAINTIFF - RELEVANCE AND EFFECT - ESTOPPEL - SECTION 115 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Jawala Singh, filed a suit for possession of certain premises, claiming to be a tenant under the defendant, Haji Mohd. Naqi. The appellant alleged that he had inducted respondent No.1, Prem Singh, as a licensee in a portion of the premises, but that Prem Singh had become a trespasser by refusing to vacate the premises after the expiry of the license period. The appellant also alleged that respondent No.2, Harbans Singh, had occupied a portion of the premises without his permission.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the appellant's suit, holding that he had failed to prove that he was the tenant of the premises in dispute. The courts found that the appellant had admitted in an application for substitution of the plaintiff that the Amrit Transport Company, a partnership firm, was the tenant of the premises, and that the appellant had wrongly instituted the suit in his own name.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had locus standi to file the suit as a tenant of the premises in dispute? 2. Whether the admissions made by the appellant in the application for substitution of the plaintiff were relevant and could be used against him? 3. Whether the appellant was estopped from denying the truth of the admissions made in the application for substitution of the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellant's admissions in the application for substitution of the plaintiff were relevant and could be used against him, as they were statements made by him under the circumstances mentioned in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, and they were relevant to the issue of whether the appellant was the tenant of the premises in dispute. 2. The admissions made by the appellant in the application for substitution of the plaintiff did not operate as estoppels against him, as the defendant had not acted upon them. 3. The appellant had failed to prove that he was the tenant of the premises in dispute, and therefore he had no locus standi to file the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs throughout.
JUDGMENT:- The question for determination is whether the appellant has succeeded in establishing that he was a tenant and could as such institute the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen.
The appeal is directed against the decree dated the 19th of January, 1966, made by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, by which the plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the trial Court was dismissed.
2. The appellant instituted a suit on the 27th of February, 1963, describing himself in the heading of the plaint:-
"Shri Jawala Singh s/o. Sardar Bhagwan Singh Prop. Amrit Transport Co., Premises Nos.4693 to 4696-A Roshnara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi (six)."
Two defendants were impleaded to the suit, but the plaint was amended later on and the amended plaint dated the 10th of August, 1963, shows that Haji Mohd. Naqi was added as defendant No.3.
The suit was filed on the allegation that the appellant acquired the premises Nos.4693 to 4696-A, Roshan Ara Road, Subzimandi, Delhi, as a tenant in 1942 and on the partition of the country continued as such under the Custodian of Evacuee Property till the 16th of January, 1962, when the management of the property was restored to Haji Mohd. Naqi. In paragraph 3 of the plaint the appellant stated that out of the premises comprised in his tenancy he had allowed defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) to occupy as a mere licensee that portion of the premises which carried municipal No.4695 and was a godown shown as ABCD along with a tin-shed marked DEFG in a coloured plan filed with the plaint. It was alleged that on being asked to vacate the premises respondent No.1 requested for time till the 31st of December, 1961, but having not vacated by that date, became a trespasser. Defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) was described as the person whom respondent No.1 had brought on the premises in order to harass the appellant. The appellant's right to bring the suit was based upon the assertion that the disputed premises being a part of those comprised in his tenancy, he had licensed them to respondent No.1.
The respondents filed separate written statements. Respondent No.1 asserted in paragraph 2 of his written statement:-
"The built accommodation with the adjoining open space in possession of the answering defendant does not bear municipal No.4695 and it was never in occupation of the plaintiff so far this defendant knows and the plaintiff was never a tenant in respect thereof."
In paragraph 3 he stated:-
"It is wrong that this defendant got the premises in his occupation from the plaintiff as a licensee as alleged by the plaintiff."
In paragraph 5 respondent No.1 emphasised:-
"The plaintiff is not the owner or a lawful tenant of the site in suit and he is not entitled to claim any damages and at any rate."
Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint and asserting that he never occupied any portion of the premises bearing No.4695.
The trial Court framed the following issues:-
"(1) Whether the plaintiff is a tenant of defendant No.2 in respect of properties Nos.4693 to 4696-A along with the courtyard? O.P.
(2) Whether defendant No.1 is a licensee of the plaintiff? If so, in what premises and on what terms? O.P.
(3) If issue No.2 is proved, whether the licence of defendant No.1 was terminated? If so, when and its effect? O.P.
(4) Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?
O.D.
(5) Whether defendant No.1 is a tenant of defendant No.3? If so, from what date?
O.D.
(6) If issue No.1 is proved, whether defendant No.3 could create tenancy in favour of defendant No.1 without terminating the tenancy of the plaintiff? O.D.
(7) If issue No.2 is proved whether the plaintiff forfeited his tenancy rights on account of creating licence in his favour? O.D.
(8) Whether defendant No.2 is in possession of any part of the suit premises? O.P.
(9) If issue No.2 is proved, what is the status of defendant No.2? O.D.
(10) To what amount, if
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
