Indermeet Kaur, J. -- This second appeal has impugned the judgment dated 21.9.1994. The appellant before this Court was the defendant before the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.1988 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent namely Mohd.Majid.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:

(i) Plaintiff Abdul Majid had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants Har Bhagwan and Prabh Dayal. It was held that the plaintiff Abdul Majid along with his brother Mhd.Ibrahim were joint tenants in respect of the disputed property shop bearing no.XIII/3016, Bhagwan Ganj, Bahadur Garh Road, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs.16.88 since 1952. Hari Ram sold the property in the year 1970 to the defendants. By operation of law, the plaintiff along with his deceased brother Mohd.Ibrahim had become tenant of the defendants. It was alleged that the shop in dispute had been taken on rent for the purpose of installing a factory and a rolling machine. Licence of the said factory had been obtained by the plaintiff in his name and the name of his deceased brother; electricity connection was also in their joint names. The defendants were creating unnecessary hindrance in the way of the plaintiff as the property prices had escalated. The defendants had even refused to accept rent from the plaintiff; he was constrained to move an application under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act’) to deposit the arrears of rent. On 9.3.1983, the defendants had prevented the plaintiff from installing a new machine in the disputed premises. The present suit was accordingly filed.

(ii) Defendants have contested the suit proceeding. It is stated that there is no privity of contract of the defendant with the plaintiff; Mohd. Ibrahim, the deceased brother of the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendants and not the plaintiff. Even otherwise, Mohd.Ibrahim was in arrears of rent and it was only after repeated notices sent to him that he had complied and made the payment of rent; these rents had been tendered by Mohd.Ibrahim alone in his individual capacity.

(iii) Trial Judge had framed three issues. Issue no.1 was the crucial issue. The Trial Judge on the basis documentary evidence led by the parties had held that the plaintiff is not a tenant in the suit property; Ex.PW-1/C dated 15.5.1952 proved by the plaintiff, a document in urdu was not relied upon; it was held that the executant Hari Ram had signed the sale deed Ex.DW-1/1 in english and a person who was conversant with the english language would not have signed Ex.PW-1/C in urdu. The subsequent documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/D which was the licence issued by the MCD and the electricity connections Ex.PW-1/E and Ex.PW-1/F were follow ups of Ex.PW-1/C. The plaintiff not being a tenant of the suit property he was not entitled to any relief. Suit was dismissed.

(iv) The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.9.1994 had reversed the finding of the Trial Judge. It was held that the plaintiff is a tenant of the defendants and he is entitled to the relief as claimed by him. The rent receipt Ex.PW-1/C dated 15.5.1952 issued to the plaintiff evidencing the payment of rent by the plaintiff Abdul Majid along with Mohd.Ibrahim to the erstwhile landlord Hari Ram had been accepted; the licence of the MCD authorizing both the brothers including the plaintiff to run the factory in the disputed premises as also the survey report of the year 1957 clearly indicated that the plaintiff Abdul Majid was also in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant. First Appellate Court held the plaintiff to be a co-joint tenant along with his deceased brother of the defendants; suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

3. On 23.11.1994, the following substantial question of law had been formulated:

1. Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court is not based on conjunctures and certain assumptions in respect of genuineness of documents and thei