Back
High Court of Delhi
REVA KHETRAPAL & PRATIBHA RANI
M/s. New Howrah Transport Company
Versus
M/s. D.M.H.P. Sales Ltd.
RFA(OS) 85 of 2009
Decided On : 09-09-2013
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 50 - Summary: The court dealt with a property dispute where the plaintiff sought possession and damages from the defendants. The defendants contested the suit, claiming adverse possession and sub-tenancy. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove the increased rent and termination of tenancy, thus lacking jurisdiction to grant possession. The claim for damages was also rejected. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff company filed a suit seeking possession and damages from the Defendants for illegal occupation of the property. The Defendants contested the suit, claiming adverse possession and sub-tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove the increased rent and termination of tenancy, lacking jurisdiction to grant possession. The claim for damages was also rejected.
Issues: The issues included adverse possession, sub-tenancy, application of Delhi Rent Control Act, maintainability of the suit, and liability for damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff's failure to prove the increased rent and termination of tenancy deprived the Civil Court of jurisdiction to grant possession. The claim for damages was rejected, and the suit was dismissed.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decree of possession was set aside. The suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed with costs.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. We are constrained to adopt a rather unusual way to deal with the present RFA by not giving a brief summary of facts but by extracting para 1 to 11 of the plaint. The purpose is to enable us and the reader of this judgment to assimilate the facts as pleaded without any editing by the authors of this judgment.
2. The Plaintiff company M/s D.M.H.P. Sales Ltd. filed a suit bearing CS (OS) No.1701/2003 against M/s New Howrah Transport Company – Defendant No.1 (Appellant herein) and Rajdhani Interstate Transport Co. (Regd.) – Defendant No.2, praying for a decree of possession in respect of portions shown as red and green in the site plan of property bearing No.1, Old Municipal No.1616 (Front and Rear) and new Municipal No.1704 allotted to the front portion of the said property which is situated at S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Queens Road, Delhi-110006. Further the Plaintiff company also claimed a money decree for a sum of Rs.32,18,400/-towards damages and mesne charges. The facts of the case as contained in paras 1 to 11 of the plaint read as under :-
‘1. That the Plaintiff company is a private limited company and duly registered with the Registrar of Companies under the Indian companies Act having its office/Head Officer at 1629, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi- 110006. Sh. Subhash Jain is one of the Directors of the Plaintiff company and is duly authorised to sign, verify, institute and file the present suit.
2. That the Plaintiff company is the owner of property bearing No.1, Old Municipal No.1616 (Front and Rear) and new Municipal No.1704, allotted the front portion of the said property which is situated at S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Queens Road, Delhi-110006.
3. That the Plaintiff purchased the said property from Sh. Suresh Chandra Jai Narain Gupta son of Sh.Jai Narain Gupta vide Regd. Sale deed dated 22.07.1975.
4. That the aforesaid property was mutated in the name of the Plaintiff company in the Municipal House Tax record vide their two separate offer letters dated 28.04.1989 issued in respect of two different portions i.e. front and rear. The Plaintiff company deposited the transfer charges amounting to Rs.10,000/- vide receipt dated 27.08.1990 as demanded by the MCD by their aforesaid letter dated 28.04.1989.
5. That prior to the purchase of the said property it was held by M/s P.S. Jain and Sons and M/s. D.M.HP. Sales Ltd. in the name and style of M/s P.S. Jain and Sons as tenant under the previous owners. In or about the year 1971 M/s. P.S. Jain and Sons got merged in M/s Universal Industries Pvt. Ltd. and in both the companies Sh. R.C. Jain was one of the directors. The Defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant in the said premises by Sh. R.C. Jain on behalf of the Plaintiff company and its sister concern. M/s P.S. Jain and Sons being sister concern of M/s D.M.H.P. Sales Ltd. its tenancy rights got merged in the ownership rights to M/s. D.M.H.P. Sales after its purchase of the property in the year 1975.
6. That the Defendant No.1 was a tenant in respect of one Godown-cum-office situated on the ground floor having an area of about 1590 sq.ft. and on the mezzanine floor having an area of 195 sq.ft. in the property bearing No.1616 (front and rear) Old, and 1704, new at S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan initially at a monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month which was later on enhanced to Rs.3600/-per month with the mutual consent of the partiesrent. The said premises has entry only from the S.P. Mukherjee Marg, whereas the entry to the basement floor to the said property is from the rear side of the road know as Nahar Shahdat Khan.
7. That the Plaintiff company had been dealing as an authorised transport contractors for M/s TELCO for a number of years. Sh. N. Annaswamy Iyyer was working as Sales Manager with M/s TELCO and during the process of dealing with him friendly relations developed between the families of partners and Directors of M/s P.S. Jain and Sons and DMHP Sales
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
