1^ i.7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 175/2008 SUMITRA DEVI & ORS. Appellant Through Mr. R.L Sharma, Advocate versus JINENDRAPRASADJAIN Respondent Through Mr. Sunil KunnarJain, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH ORDER % 07.08.2009 Respondent (plaintiff) had filed a suit against the appellant(defendant)seeking recovery of possessionof ground floor of property No. 1267, Vakil Pura and for recovery of Rs.938.48 paise as arrears of rent and dannages for the period from 1.5.1998 to 21.11.2000 alleging that the tenancy, of erstwhiletenant Sh. Risal Singh and Attar Singh was terminated vide notice dated 6.4.1989 sent through registered AD/UPC post and thereafter the said two persons became statutory tenants with effect from 1.5.1989. After the death of Risal Singh on 15.1.1991,the tenancy was inheritedby ChhatriDevi. Chhatri RSA 175/2008 1 of 3 Signing Date:24.07.2024 17:12:49 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified > Devi also died on 7.7.1991 and Attar Singh also died on 23.5.1993. Laxmi Devi, widow of Attar Singh, became a limited tenant. She died on 21.11.2000. The defendants after the death of Chhatri Devi and Laxmi Devi are the unauthorised occupants of the premises without any right and authority. The civil judge vide his judgment and decree dated 3.3.2007 was pleased to pass a decree for possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and also a decree for a sum of Rs.375.15 paise towards the arrears of rent as well as damages (a)Rs.50/- per month with effect from 22.11.2000 till realization of possession. This judgment and decree of the civil judge was challenged by the defendants by way of an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court vide its judgment dated 15.3.2008. The second appeal has been preferred by the appellants thereby raising some substantial questions of law as suggested in the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal respondent succeeded in getting the possession of the suit property on 24.5.2009 in the execution proceedings. Learned RSA 175/2008 Page 2 of 3 \C) counsel for the respondent made a statement in this Court on 31.7.2009 that since the amount or arrears of rent and quantum of damages as awarded by the trial court are negligible, respondent was not keen to execute the decree for the recovery of the said amount. Under these circumstances, when the appeal has become infructuous and the decree stands fully satisfied as the respondent has given up his claim for arrears of rent and quantum of damages due from the appellant, I need not consider if any substantial questions of law can be formulated in this appeal as it would be a futile exercise. Hence, the appeal is dismissed having become infructuous. The respondent shall not execute the decree for arrears of rent and quantum of damages as per his undertaking given to this Court on 31.7.2009. ARUNASURESH, J. AUGUST 07, 2009 jk RSA 175/2008 Page 3 of 3