that the defendant has agreed to pay Rs.5/ per month to the plaintiff being rent of open land measuring 9x 7 in front of the door of the house No.417, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
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.
On February 12, 1987 the trial companyrt, after companysidering 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 number maintainable and thus dismissed the suit.
The suit was companytested 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.
But the parties settled their dispute and filed a companypromise under which the respondent became the tenant of the suit plot on a monthly rent of Rs.5/ and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on March 27, 1978.
The appellants 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.
By a numberice dated December 19, 1983 the appellant terminated the tenancy, created under the said companypromise 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.
There, the lessee companystructed building and a shed on the land leased out to him.
The respondent had unauthorisedly companystructed 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, Ist Class, Delhi, praying for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to demolish the companystruction made by her on the suit plot.
In this appeal the appellant has challenged the companyrectness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing her second appeal S.A.No.105 of 1994 on November 28, 1997.
The structure latrine admittedly does number belong to the appellant.
The appellant is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant.
There is a vacant land of appellant adjacent to the said property of which an open plot of land measuring 9x 7 hereinafter referred to the suit plot is the subject matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises.
Since the basis of the tenancy between the parties is the companypromise entered into between them in the earlier suit which was withdrawn on March 27, 1978, it is necessary to refer to the following relevant terms of the companypromise that the defendant has raised the latrine on the open land of 9x 7 in front of the door of house No.417, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.
The appellant is the owner of property bearing No.417, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, companysisting of one big room which was let out by her to the respondent.
But the appellant did number acquire any right in the structure latrine companystructed unauthorised by the respondent.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 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.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are number in companytroversy.
