S.N. Phukan JUDGMENT
S.S.M. Quadri, J.
1. This appeal raises a short question as to whether the suit plot is "premises" within the meaning of Section 2(i) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing her second appeal (R.S.A. No. 105 of 1994) on November 28, 1997. The appellant is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are not in controversy. The appellant is the owner of property bearing No. 417. Masjid Moth, New Delhi, (consisting of one big room) which was let out by her to the respondent. There is a vacant land of appellant adjacent to the said property of which an open plot of land measuring 9"x 7' (hereinafter referred to 'the suit plot') is the subject matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises. The respondent had unauthorisedly constructed a latrine on the suit plot which gave cause to the appellant to file Suit No. 79 of 1978 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge. 1st class. Delhi, praying for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to demolish the construction made by her on the suit plot. But the parties settled their dispute and filed a compromise under which the respondent became the tenant of the suit plot on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/- and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on March 27, 1978.
4. By a notice dated December 19, 1983 the appellant terminated the tenancy, created under the said compromise and filed Suit No. 691 of 1984 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, for recovery of possession of the suit plot by evicting the respondent. The suit was contested by the respondent on the sole ground that the suit plot was premises' within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Delhi Act') and, therefore, the suit was barred under Section 50 of the said Act. On February 12, 1987 the Trial Court, after considering all the evidence placed before it. held that the suit plot was 'premises' as defined in Section 2(i) of the Delhi Act. therefore, the suit was not maintainable and thus dismissed the suit. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed against the said judgment in R.C.A. No. 26 of 1987 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Delhi, which was dismissed on September 14. 1994. The appellant's second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and hence she is in appeal before this Court by special leave.
5. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the terms of the compromise would clearly show that what was let out to the respondent was only a plot of land measuring 9' x 7'. Even though on that date there was a latrine on the suit plot, yet the subject matter of the tenancy was only plot of land, not structure thereon which admittedly belonged to the respondent. As the appellant had no right, title or interest in the structure, she could not have let out the same but the Courts below dismissed the suit of the appellant by wrongly applying Section 50 of the Act.<........