RAM SARAN Vs. MISRI LAL MAURIYA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-8-17
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on August 24,1983

RAM SARAN Appellant
VERSUS
MISRI LAL MAURIYA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GIRDHARI LAL V. ABDUL JALIL [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH VS. RAM NATH [REFERRED TO]
HAJI MOHAMMAD DIN VS. NARAIN DASS [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PRAKASH VS. SHANTA SINHA CHENOY [REFERRED TO]
B P N SHRIVASTAVA VS. POORI BAI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DHAN SINGH VS. BHAGWAN [LAWS(DLH)-1996-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI LAL DECD VS. SIRI KRISHAN [LAWS(DLH)-1996-2-87] [REFERRED]
CONTAINER MOVEMENT BOMBAY TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CAPITAL CARGO AND CONTAINER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2000-3-3] [REFERRED]
MOHD SAIED VS. MODEL PRESS P LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-115] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.L.Jain, J. - (1.)This judgment will dispose of S.A.O. 116/82 and cross-objections CM 2147/82.
(2.)The appellant Ram Saran was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 33.00 in the disputed shop. He was inducted by Lallu Rain father of Misri Lal respondent. The father gifted the property in favour of the respondent and the appellant began to pay rent to him in June, 1972, but stopped doing so with effect from 1-10-1975. Misri Lal served anotice on Ram Saran on 26-3-1979 of demand for arrears oi rent and termination of tenancy with effect from 30-4-1979, but with no result. He then filed the present eviction application under cl.(a)of Sec. 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (the Act).
(3.)The tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Misri Lal. He said that he was inducted as tenant by Misri Lal's brother Ganga Ram and has been paying rent to Ganga Ram and the applicant never notified to him that he was the owner. Upon receipt of the notice he tendered rent first to Ganga Ran, then to Misri Lal, but both refused to accept. Ultimately, he deposited the same under Sec. 27 of the Act for the period from 1-9-1976 to 30-4-1979. He claimed that he has complied with the notice within two months of the service of the notice and, therefore, no cause of action was available against him.
;


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