Kare Din Vs. Rakesh Mohan
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.5115 of 1998
Petitioner: Kare Din
Respondent: Rakesh Mohan
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.5115 of 1998
Judges: V.N. KHARE & A.P.MISRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 14, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 9 – Recovery suit – Locus standi – Tenant admitted by ‘R’ – Property sold by his brother ‘H’ to plaintiff ‘R’ – Suit for recovery of rent by ‘R’ from tenant – Agreement between ‘H’ & ‘R’ showing ‘R’ to be entitled to recover rent from tenant. Held that he had right to file suit. Appeal dismissed.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant is the tenant of premises in dispute. The case of the appellant is that he was put in possession over the prop-erty by one R.K. Bali. Subsequently, one H.N. Bali, brother of R.K. Bali by an agreement, agreed to transfer the property in favour of plaintiff-respondent. After the said agreement, the plaintiff brought a suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant (tenant) on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The defendant-appellant took a plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties an as such the suit was liable to be dismissed.
2.The trial court found that the plaintiff is not the landlord and, therefore, the suit was dismissed. However, the first appellate court found that the plaintiff for the purpose of bringing a suit for recovery of rent is a landlord. Consequent-ly, the appeal was allowed and suit was decreed.
3. The tenant filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal summarily holding that no sub-stantial question of law arises in the appeal. It is against the said
judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-tenant urged that there being no evidence that the plaintiff was the landlord of the premises, the view taken by the courts below was erroneous. This argument has no merit. It is not in dispute that by an agreement dated 19.03.1985, Shri H.N. Bali who is the brother of Shri R.N. Bali, agreed to transfer the property in favour of the plaintiff. The said agreement was witnessed by Shri R.K. Bali who allegedly inducted the defendant-appellant in the property. Clause 3 of the said agreement authorised the plaintiff to re-ceive and recover the rents directly from the tenants including the defendant-appellant. After the said agreement the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the Municipal records and the MCD issued a certificate which was exhibited on the record as Ex. PW.1/3. The first appellate court after considering the entire evidence on record, recorded a finding that for bringing suit for recovery of rent the plaintiff is the landlord of the property of which defendant-appellant is a tenant. This being a finding of fact, it cannot be interfered with. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
1. The appellant is the tenant of premises in dispute. The case of the appellant is that he was put in possession over the prop-erty by one R.K. Bali. Subsequently, one H.N. Bali, brother of R.K. Bali by an agreement, agreed to transfer the property in favour of plaintiff-respondent. After the said agreement, the plaintiff brought a suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant (tenant) on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The defendant-appellant took a plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties an as such the suit was liable to be dismissed.
2.The trial court found that the plaintiff is not the landlord and, therefore, the suit was dismissed. However, the first appellate court found that the plaintiff for the purpose of bringing a suit for recovery of rent is a landlord. Consequent-ly, the appeal was allowed and suit was decreed.
3. The tenant filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal summarily holding that no sub-stantial question of law arises in the appeal. It is against the said
judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-tenant urged that there being no evidence that the plaintiff was the landlord of the premises, the view taken by the courts below was erroneous. This argument has no merit. It is not in dispute that by an agreement dated 19.03.1985, Shri H.N. Bali who is the brother of Shri R.N. Bali, agreed to transfer the property in favour of the plaintiff. The said agreement was witnessed by Shri R.K. Bali who allegedly inducted the defendant-appellant in the property. Clause 3 of the said agreement authorised the plaintiff to re-ceive and recover the rents directly from the tenants including the defendant-appellant. After the said agreement the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the Municipal records and the MCD issued a certificate which was exhibited on the record as Ex. PW.1/3. The first appellate court after considering the entire evidence on record, recorded a finding that for bringing suit for recovery of rent the plaintiff is the landlord of the property of which defendant-appellant is a tenant. This being a finding of fact, it cannot be interfered with. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
