Bhagwan Das Narang vs Radhey Kishan
2008 Latest Caselaw 2036 Del

9
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      RFA No.155/2008

                       Date of decision: 19th November, 2008
%

BHAGWAN DAS NARANG                  ..... Appellant
                Through : Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Adv.

                  versus

RADHEY KISHAN                           ..... Respondent
                              Through : None.


CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.       Whether Reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.       To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.       Whether the judgment should be
         reported in the Digest?


Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)

1. None appeared for the respondent at the first call. None

appears for the respondent even at the second call.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

3. We find that impugned judgment and decree dated 29 th

November, 2007 appears to have been passed post haste.

The result is that the appellant has lost the right to recover

possession of shop No.A-305 New Subji Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi.

4. This is in spite of the fact that a perpetuate lease deed

dated 6th July, 1971 evidencing that the President of India

acting through the Government of Delhi transferred perpetual

leasehold rights in the land in question in favor of M/s. Delhi

Alu Company was filed before the Learned Trial Judge.

5. Learned Trial Judge has failed to realize the distinction

between a licence issued by the Agricultural Produce

Marketing Committee authorizing traders to carry on business

within the precincts of a market vis-à-vis the licence granted

under the Easement Act. The impugned judgment shows that

the licence issued by APMC to carry on business within the

precincts of Azadpur Subji Mandi has been construed as the

entitlement of the defendant as the owner of the premises.

6. Vide impugned judgment dated 29 th November, 2007,

holding that the appellant had led no evidence, the suit has

been dismissed commenting that the plaintiff has not even

filed any title document and that the licence issued by the

APMC evidenced the right of the defendant to occupy the

premises.

7. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned

judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2007. The suit

filed by the appellant is restored with a direction to the

Learned Trial Judge to grant an opportunity to the appellant to

lead evidence.

8. Needless to state even the defendant would be

permitted to lead evidence.

9. We take on record the assurance of learned counsel for

the appellant that the appellant would be more vigilant and

would ensure that his evidence is brought on record and that

the witnesses are produced on the date notified for evidence

by the Learned Trial Judge.

10. Dasti on payment of charges.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 19, 2008 mk