SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) RAM Bhagat plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that he is a tenant in the shop-cum-godown, the premises in dispute, on payment of rent of Rs. 200/- since 1993. Defendant-landlord had agreed to execute rent note which was not executed and no rent receipt was issued. Injunction was sought against forcible dispossession from the tenanted premises. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was stated that Arjun Dev had taken the said shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month with effect from 16.4.1992 and he was running business there. The plaintiff had no connection with the premises.
(2.) THE learned trial Court after granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence vide its judgment and decree dated 4.8.1997 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with special costs of Rs. 500/-. The unsuccessful plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge while affirming the finding of facts and the point of view in law taken by the learned trial Court held as under :- "The defendant brought on the record the evidence of DW3 Raj Kumar Rent Clerk that the shop of the Municipal Committee was taken on rent by plaintiff. But the plaintiff on oath denied that he ever took any other shop on rent from the municipal committee. The plaintiff did not give details of his denials as to how the record of the Municipal Committees spoke that he had taken a different shop on rent from it. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant argued that relationship of landlord and tenant has to be determined by the Rent Controller. He cited Ram Ashram Committee v. kishan Lal, 1980(2) R.C.R. 729. This authority is not applicable in this case. The plaintiff has himself filed a suit claiming his tenancy and seeking injunction against the defendant from forcibly dispossessing him. In our case, the title of the defendant is not disputed. The plaintiff's plea is of tenancy. The burden is upon him. In support of it, Chandrabai Panduranag Bidwekar v. Nanji Jaywant, AIR 1971 Bombay 115 has been cited. It is a settled proposition of law that a party, who alleges certain facts has to prove it. The plaintiff in this case has claimed his possession as tenant, which is denied by the defendant. The plaintiff made his self-serving statement only. Allegedly, he paid rent only for two months, but the landlord did not issue any receipt. It cannot be believed that at least for the first month for the creation of the tenancy, the tenant would pay the rent unless receipt is executed. The contract of tenancy must be strictly proved as held in Smt. Suggi Devi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur and Ors., 1978 R.C.R. 751". It may also be noticed here that the defendants were found to be trespassers and, thus, not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. The report of the local Commissioner has rightly been rejected by the learned Courts below as it offended the basic purpose behind Order 26 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code as well as the principles of natural justice. No notice was given by the learned Commissioner to the defendant. The Court had not fixed any time and date for inspection by the Commissioner. Thus, the Commissioner was obliged to give notice to the defendants and carry out his inspection proceedings in presence of parties or their duly authorised representatives. It is clear from the record that this was not done.
(3.) PRESENT regular second appeal raised no question of law for consideration of the court. Dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.;