RFANo.155/2008 Page 1 of 3 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.155/2008 Date of decision: 19th November, 2008 % BHAGWAN DAS NARANG ..... Appellant Through : Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Adv. versus RADHEY KISHAN ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. None appeared for the respondent at the first call. None appears for the respondent even at the second call. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. We find that impugned judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2007 appears to have been passed post haste. The result is that the appellant has lost the right to recover possession of shop No.A-305 New Subji Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. 4. This is in spite of the fact that a perpetuate lease deed dated 6th July, 1971 evidencing that the President of India RFANo.155/2008 Page 2 of 3 acting through the Government of Delhi transferred perpetual leasehold rights in the land in question in favor of M/s. Delhi Alu Company was filed before the Learned Trial Judge. 5. Learned Trial Judge has failed to realize the distinction between a licence issued by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee authorizing traders to carry on business within the precincts of a market vis-à-vis the licence granted under the Easement Act. The impugned judgment shows that the licence issued by APMC to carry on business within the precincts of Azadpur Subji Mandi has been construed as the entitlement of the defendant as the owner of the premises. 6. Vide impugned judgment dated 29th November, 2007, holding that the appellant had led no evidence, the suit has been dismissed commenting that the plaintiff has not even filed any title document and that the licence issued by the APMC evidenced the right of the defendant to occupy the premises. 7. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2007. The suit filed by the appellant is restored with a direction to the Learned Trial Judge to grant an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence. 8. Needless to state even the defendant would be permitted to lead evidence. RFANo.155/2008 Page 3 of 3 9. We take on record the assurance of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant would be more vigilant and would ensure that his evidence is brought on record and that the witnesses are produced on the date notified for evidence by the Learned Trial Judge. 10. Dasti on payment of charges. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 19, 2008 mk