Sh. Rawel Singh and Another vs Smt. Nangi and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—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.

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 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.

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 u/s 50 of the Delhi Control Act. These are two concurrent findings of facts given by the two courts below.

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?

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.

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.