Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 891
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judge: S. Muralidhar, J.
D.M.H.P. Sales Ltd. – Appellants
Vs.
New Howrah Transport Company and Ors. – Respondent
CS(OS) 1701/2003 and IAs 8848, 10647 and 13220/2007
Decided On: 13.08.2009
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Gagan Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Amit Singh, Adv. for D-1 and Paritosh Budhiraja, Adv. for D-2
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove adverse possession against the true owner, as well as the need for clear and unequivocal evidence to support claims of adverse possession.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Companies Act, 1956 - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1988 - [KEYWORD] - Recovery of possession and damages by way of mesne profits/occupation charges - Companies Act, 1956, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1988 - The court discussed the concept of adverse possession and its essential ingredients, citing T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa and Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant, and held that the Defendant failed to prove adverse possession against the true owner. The court also addressed issues related to agreements, sub-letting, and the bar under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1988, and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff on these matters.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, a limited company, sought recovery of possession and damages for the suit property, claiming ownership since 1975. The Defendants, tenants of the property, raised adverse possession and sub-letting as defenses. The court analyzed the evidence and legal principles to determine the rights of the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Defendant failed to prove adverse possession against the true owner, and the agreements and sub-letting were not established. The suit was not barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the Plaintiff was entitled to possession and eviction of the Defendants. However, the claim for damages was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Issues: The issues involved adverse possession, agreements, sub-letting, bar under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the validity of the suit under Order II Rule 3 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa and Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant to determine adverse possession and ownership rights. It also considered the evidence and legal provisions to rule on agreements, sub-letting, and the bar under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1988.
Final Decision: The suit was partly decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, granting possession and eviction of the Defendants, but denying the claim for damages due to lack of evidence.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This is a suit for recovery of possession and damages by way of mesne profits/occupation charges.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and owner of property at 1, old Municipal No. 1616 (front and rear) and new Municipal No. 1704, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Queens Road, Delhi110006 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The Plaintiff purchased the suit property from Shri Suresh Chandra Jai Narain Gupta by sale deed dated 22nd July 1975. The suit property was mutated in the name of the Plaintiff in the municipal house tax record in April 1989.
3. It is stated that prior to the said purchase by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff as well as M/s P.S. Jain and Sons were tenants in the suit property. In 1971 P.S. Jain and Sons merged with M/s Universal Industries Pvt. Ltd. One R.C. Jain was the Director both in the Plaintiff as well as Universal Industries Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that P.S. Jain and Sons being the sister concern of the Plaintiff, its tenancy rights got merged in the ownership rights of the Plaintiff after the suit property was purchased by the latter in 1975.
4. It is stated that R.C. Jain inducted Defendant No. 1 in the godown-cum-office on the ground floor and the mezzanine portion of property, which is shown in Red in the site plan appended to the plaint. The ground floor was of an area of about 1590 sq. ft. whereas the mezzanine portion was 195 sq. ft. The monthly rent was Rs. 200/- which was later enhanced to Rs. 3,600. The entry to the red portion was from S.P.Mukherjee Road whereas the entry to the basement was from the rear side of the road known as Nahar Shahdat Khan.
5. It is stated in the plaint that the Defendant No. 1 did not pay rent after 31st December 1982 despite several reminders. Defendant No. 1 also did not hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property. Instead it parted with possession to Defendant No. 2 who is carrying on business of transport under the name and style of Rajdhani Interstate Transport Company. Defendant No. 2 is also stated to have taken over wrongful and illegal possession of the lower ground floor, i.e., the basement having area of about 1200 sq. ft., marked in the Green in the site plan. This portion is stated to have been earlier handed over to the Plaintiff by the tenant M/s Ganpat Rai Vijay Kumar on 24th May 1993 through eviction proceedings. Thereafter the Defendant No. 2 illegally broke open the locks of the said portion and took over possession allegedly on 1st July 2003. Despite a police complaint being lodged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 2 did not hand over the vacant possession of the said portion. It is on the above basis that the suit was filed against both the defendants seeking recovery of possession of the suit property and mesne profits.
6. In the written statement filed by the Defendant No. 1 it was contended that the earlier the Plaintiff had filed a civil suit for injunction against Defendant No. 1 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The suit had been filed on 3rd July 1990 and was still pending disposal in that court. In its written statement in the said suit, the defendant had challenged the right and title of the plaintiff to the suit property and had claimed there that it had perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession. In para 6 of the written statement it was stated as under:
6. That it is pertinent to give a brief background of the facts and circumstances, under which the Defendant No. 1 had asserted itself as an adverse owner of the said portion of the impugned premises, which adverse possession has also perfected itself with the passage of stipulated time under the law.
7. Further in the same paragraph, the Defendant No. 1 admitted that it was inducted in the suit property in the year 1959 by Shri R.C. Jain. However, the Defendant No. 1 was silent on whether it was paying any rent to Shri R.C. Jain. On the
