9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits, defense of being a tenant, jurisdiction under Section 50 of the DRC Act, entitlement to possession, damages/mesne profits, injunction, relief.
Issue 1: Trespass or tenant status The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of possession of a flat, alleging trespass. The appellant claimed to be a tenant under the respondent at a specific rent. The issues framed included whether the defendants were trespassers and whether the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff. Issue 2: Jurisdiction under Section 50 of the DRC Act One of the issues raised was whether the jurisdiction of the Court was barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act, indicating a legal question regarding the applicability of this specific provision. Issue 3: Entitlement to possession and mesne profits The suit also involved determining whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the premises and to damages/mesne profits, specifying the rate and period of such entitlement. Judgment Summary: The appellant had previously filed a suit for injunction claiming tenant status, which was initially decreed in his favor but later overturned on appeal, establishing him as a trespasser. Subsequently, in the suit for possession, the respondent sought relief under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC based on the appellant's trespasser status. The appellant claimed to have filed a second appeal against the trespasser status judgment but failed to provide details. The court held that the finality of the trespasser finding precluded the need for a trial, citing legal precedents. As no other arguments were presented, the appeal was dismissed without costs. This judgment underscores the importance of legal procedures and the finality of court decisions, emphasizing that framing issues does not mandate a trial if unnecessary. The decision highlights the significance of complying with legal requirements and the consequences of failing to pursue appropriate legal remedies.
|
