Decided on December 16,1983



G.C. Jain, J. - (1.)Shri Ram Kishan Ahuja, respondent herein, brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,620.00 against the present appellants on the allegations that he was the owner of the premises bearing Municipal No. 37-A, Kamal Nagar, Delhi, having purchased the same from its previous owner, Shri Ram Jiwan Gupta and that the appellants were in occupation of two shops, measuring II' x 9', at a monthly rent of Rs. 132.00 and a sum of Rs. 4,620.00 was due to him from them towards rent for the period April 1, 1973 to February 29, 1976. The appellants resisted the suit and raised various pleas. It was pleaded, inter alia, that Ram Jiwan Gupta had let out the shop aid the hall on the back of it to the appellants on a monthly rent of Rs. 132.00 . The Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi, vide his judgment dated April 10, 1980 held that the appellants were in occupation of the shop as well as the hall as tenants under the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 132.00 and that a sum of Rs. 4,620.00 as claimed by the respondent was due. He, consequently, decreed the suit of the respondent with costs.
(2.)Feeling dissatisfied, the respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge assailing the findings of the learned subordinate Judge regarding the extent of accommodation. The present appellants raised a preliminary objection that the suit of the respondent having been fully decreed the appeal was not competent. This objection found favour with the learned District Judge who dismissed the appeal on that ground by his judgment dated November 11, 1980.
(3.)The respondent thereafter filed an application for eviction of the appellants alleging, inter alia, that the appellants were in occupation of two shops, which were converted into one shop, as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 132.00 . In those proceedings the appellants filed an application under Order 7 rule 11, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejesting the eviction petition. It was averred that the tenancy premises consisted of the shop and the hall in its back as had been held by the Civil Court earlier and the petition being for partial eviction was liable to be rejected. The learned Additional Rent Controller by her order dated April 16, 1983 held that the decision of the civil court had become final and in view of the said decision the eviction petition was only for partial eviction and was not maintainable. She consequently rejected the application. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order before the Rent Control Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that the finding of the civil court regarding the extent of the tenancy premises was not res judicata because the appeal filed by the present respondent against the said finding had been dismissed being not maintainable. He consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Controller.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.