Ashok Kumar vs Sangeeta Narang
2014 Latest Caselaw 5881 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               Date of Decision: November 17, 2014

+     RSA 346/2014
      ASHOK KUMAR                                        ..... Appellant
                          Through:     Mr. Mohd. Elahi, Advocate

                          versus

      SANGEETA NARANG                                     ..... Respondent
                  Through:                 Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                       JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

The concurrent findings returned by both the courts below are that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of `11,500/- in lieu of arrears of rent for the period in question, as appellant had failed to duly prove the Sale Deed in question. The factual background of this case already stands noted in the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration.

At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant had contended that both the courts below have erroneously held that the Sale Deed of 1 st March, 2006 in favour of appellant does not stand duly proved and infact, in the written statement by respondent No.2, there is a tacit admission of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thus, the judgment of the courts below deserve to be set aside and suit of the appellant-plaintiff ought to be allowed.

RSA No.346/2014 Page 1 Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, trial court judgment and material on record, I find that the question of ownership of appellant-plaintiff is in dispute in another suit, which is said to be pending. This finds mentioned in the written statement filed by respondent-defendant.

During the course of hearing, it was put to learned counsel for appellant as to what was the fate of the aforesaid suit and appellant's counsel had submitted that he was unaware of it. Otherwise also, upon perusal of the impugned judgment and trial court judgment, I find that there is no perversity and in the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                         JUDGE

NOVEMBER 17, 2014
r




RSA No.346/2014                                                     Page 2