Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

                                                                                 BANSAL     2025.10.17
RCT No. 45/2023       Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup                Page 13 of 15              16:42:25
                                                                                            +0530
of the property in question with common toilet and staircase was let out by Smt. Vindhya Devi to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-."

32. From these facts itself it is clear that it was not the roof only but with the right to use the stair case as well as toilet which were for common use of the other residents were let out. Therefore, this contention that only roof was let out is wrong. It is also important to note that it was not an open plot which was let out. It was roof of a constructed house along with common user of toilet and staircase which was let out. Hence in my opinion the contention that it was an open plot which was let out is not tenable and also the judgments relied upon by the appellant herein. In view of the above discussion and as per the admission of the appellant Smt. Vindhya Devi was the landlady and father of the appellant was the tenant. Vindhya Devi had died. She has executed the will bequeathing the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent herein, therefore he is the landlord qua the premises in dispute and the appellant is the tenant.