Fateh Singh vs Sudha Sharma And Anr.
1998 Latest Caselaw 855 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Kapoor, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge dated 19.8.1995.

According to the plaintiff-appellant he let out to the defendant-respondent premises No.19/112, having an area of 50 sq.yds. in Khasra No. 207/200, Nimmri, known as West Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi w.e.f. 1.1.1993 at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month consisting of one big hall on the ground floor and one big room on the first floor. One month's rent was paid in advance. There was no formal rent agreement. The defendant-respondent did not pay the rent for the month of February, 1993. On 18th March, 1993 the plaintiff-appellant found that the defendants have started making some additions and alterations in the tenanted premises against the terms of tenancy and started demolishing original structure. The defendant did not pay any heed to his request not to do the same. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit.

2. The defendant-respondents contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the property in question qua the defendants. It appears that defendant No.2 entered into an agreement to purchase the property from one Pardeep Goswami for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and executed an agreement to sell on G.P.A. and affidavit and got the receipt registered. The defendant also claimed that the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant No. 1.

The trial proceeded on the following issues :

1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of defendant No.1?

2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner/landlord of suit properly?

3. The learned Trial Court ordered the deletion of name of respondent No.1 from the array of defendants and that finding was not challenged before the First Appellate Court.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Court below the present appeal has been filed.

5. It is contended that the appropriate issues were not framed and as such lot of prejudice has been caused to the appellant. It appears that when the plaintiffapelland claims to let out the premises and defendant No.2 claims to have purchased the property from somebody else and has allegedly not occupied the same as a tenant the parties knew the case of each other. The issue framed : "whether the plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the suit property?" was appropriately framed to cover the contention of both the parties. In this regard it is an admitted fact that there is no receipt, no agreement in writing and the Trial Courts as well as Appellate Court after considering the evidence on merits has rejected the contention of the appellant that he had let out the premises or he was not the owner of the property. In view of these concurrent findings of fact that appropriate issue was framed which did not lead to any prejudice to either of the parties and the parties led evidence whatsoever evidence they could lead, I find it difficult to accept the submission that the appellant was misled and did not lead appropriate evidence. I do not find any merit in the second appeal and dismissed the same. Parties are left to bear their own cost.