The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing sufficient evidence to establish tenancy rights and the court's reliance on the intention of the parties in determining the nature of occupancy.

Mukta Gupta, J.

CM Nos.11502/2015 (additional documents) & 11503/2015 (Directions)

1. By these applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and Order XI Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC Mukesh Kumar Gupta, the Appellant inter alia prays that he was granted No Objection Certificate for installation of separate electricity connection and despite due diligence he has now been able to find those documents and that he is also in possession of the rent receipts deposited by him to the Rent Controller, South and they be permitted to be placed on record.

2. In CM No.11503/2015 he further prays that the Respondent be directed to produce all the documents relating to the sanction plan of the suit property.

3. The fact that the electricity meter was in the name of the Appellant and that Mukesh Kumar had deposited the rent after notice was given by the Respondent have been duly noted by the learned Single Judge and thus no case is made out for leading additional evidence or directing the Respondent Surendra Kumar Gupta for discovery of the documents.

4. Applications are dismissed as such.

RFA(OS) 63/2015

1. The appeal is listed for preliminary hearing for admission. The record of the suit in which the impugned decree has been passed has been sent along with the appeal file by the Registry of this Court as per practice directions issued. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant without fixing a date for hearing of the appeal as contemplated by Rule 11 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure because learned counsel for the Appellant desires that the Appellant be heard today itself.

2. The Respondent Surendra Kumar Gupta filed a suit against his brother Mukesh Kumar Gupta, the Appellant herein seeking recovery of possession, mesne profit/damages and injunction.

3. In the plaint Surendra Kumar Gupta pleaded that he had bought half undivided share in the suit property, that is, House No.E-262, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi (in short ‘the suit property’) from Smt.Kamla Kundra vide sale deed dated December 12, 1974 and the property was his self acquired property. The other half of the undivided share in the 250 sq.yards suit property which was built upto 1½ storey was bought by his half brother Devinder Nath Gupta vide separate Sale Deed dated December 18, 1974 from Smt.Kamla Kundra. Both the sale deeds were duly registered. Surendra Kumar Gupta and his brother Devinder Nath Gupta entered into a registered Partition Deed dated January 18, 1980 whereby Devinder Nath Gupta became the absolute owner of the ground floor of the suit property and Surendra Kumar Gupta, absolute owner of the first floor and the terrace. Since the ground floor was valued at higher rate Devinder Nath Gupta paid a sum of Rs. 39,300/- to Surendra Kumar Gupta.

4. When the suit property was purchased, the first floor had only two rooms, toilet, kitchen and a lounge. Surendra Kumar Gupta completed the construction on the first floor and also constructed two rooms set on the second floor at his own expenditure in the year 1988 and later in the year 1999 he completed the construction of the second floor and a Barsati floor on the third floor. After the construction of the second floor and the Barsati floor in the year 1999 Mukesh Kumar, the real brother of Surendra Kumar Gupta, who was living at Naya Bans, Khari Baoli sought his permission to reside on the second floor at the suit property since the accommodation at Naya Bans, Khari Baoli was not suitable. Thus Surendra Kumar permitted Mukesh Kumar and his family to occupy the second floor as a licensee in view of the relationship. On the request of Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Surendra Kumar permitted him to obtain a separate electricity meter. However, since Surendra Kumar needed the accommodation he sent a notice dated February 23, 2010 revoking the license of Mukesh Kumar Gupta asking him to vacate the second floor of the suit property and on failure to do so to pay damages @ Rs. 50,000/- per month. Since Mukesh Ku