Sh. Rawel Singh And Anr. vs Smt. Nangi And Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3973 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                     Date of Judgment : 27.08.2010

+                        RSA No.87/1989


SH. RAWEL SINGH AND ANR.                          ...........Appellants
             Through: None.

                      Versus

SMT. NANGI AND ORS.                               ..........Respondents
             Through:            None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

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

INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)

1.     The appellant has been served. None has appeared for him.

2.     In the order dated 20th July, 2010, it had been noted that

Mr. Ishwar Sahai, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had

expired. Court notice had been ordered to the appellant.

3.     This appeal has impugned the judgment dated 21.10.1988

which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 12.09.1988

thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.     The appellant is the

plaintiff before this court.      He had filed a suit for recovery of

possession of one room on ground floor of house no. 3159-3161,

Kucha Tara Chand, Darya Ganj, Delhi as also for damages. He had

averred that the defendant is a tenant.           The defence of the

defendant was that the original tenant had died leaving behind a

son and a daughter, namely, Sh. Nannu Mal and Smt. Rukoo. Smt.

Rukoo was paying rent of the premises to the plaintiff who had

 R.S.A. No. 87/1989                                          Page 1 of 2
 accepted the same.       No notice of termination had been issued.

Trial court had dismissed the suit holding that deceased Rukoo and

her brother, Sh. Nannu Mal were both tenants having jointly

inherited the tenancy from Smt. Kaloo, the original tenant.         The

civil suit was barred.

4.     In appeal, on 21.10.1982, the court had endorsed the finding

of the trial judge holding that since there is a relationship of

landlord and tenant between the parties, the jurisdiction of the civil

court is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Control Act. . These

are two concurrent findings of facts given by the two courts below.

5.     On 14.12.1990, the appeal was admitted and the following

substantial question of law was formulated:

              "Whether the service of notice of termination of
              tenancy of Ms. Rukoo, one of the heirs of the
              original tenant, was not a valid notice of
              termination of tenancy, when allegedly, Ms. Rukoo
              alone was paying rent of the premises, after the
              death of her mother?"

6.     None has appeared for the appellant. Even otherwise this

substantial question of law as formulated on 14.12.1990 had been

delved into by the courts below. The trial judge, after examination

and scrutiny of the oral as also the documentary evidence had held

that apart from Smt. Rukoo, her brother- Sh. Nannu Mal had also

inherited the tenancy from the original tenant, Smt. Kaloo.         The

notice was invalid.

7.     This court not being a third fact finding court, it cannot

interfere with two concurrent findings of the courts below.          The

substantial question of law is answered accordingly. The appeal is

dismissed.

                                            INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 27, 2010 ss