Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Jai Kunwar - Appellant
Versus
Dharam Devi - Respondent
RSA 54 OF 2012
Decided on : 10.08.2015
Mr. Gurmehar Singh Sistani, Advocate with Mr. R.K. Sharma, Ms. Dezy Gaur & Md. Syed Mohd Mehdi, Advocates
Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the forfeiture of tenancy and the entitlement to protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act based on the nature of the landlord and tenant relationship established by the rent agreement.
Headnote:
Rent Agreement - Landlord and Tenant Relationship - Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 50 - Section 116 of the Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages against the appellant-defendant, claiming the appellant was a tenant and owed rent. The Trial Court decreed arrears of rent for three years. Both parties filed appeals, and the First Appellate Court held that the appellant had forfeited his tenancy and was not entitled to protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellant had forfeited his tenancy by setting up a title adverse to the respondent-plaintiff, and thus, was not entitled to protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Court also held that the rent agreement established a landlord and tenant relationship, and the respondent was entitled to serve a notice terminating the tenancy.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the landlord and tenant relationship, adverse possession, and limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 50, and Section 116 of the Evidence Act to determine the landlord and tenant relationship and the forfeiture of tenancy. It also considered the terms of the rent agreement to establish the nature of the relationship between the parties.
Final Decision: The Court modified the judgment and decree, setting aside the arrears of rent and holding that the appellant could retain possession until the respondent made payment or deposit of the outstanding amount. Once the amount was tendered, paid, or deposited, the respondent would be entitled to execute the decree for possession.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration:
Whether the judgments of the courts below suffer from any error of fact or law?
2. With the consent of the parties, I proceed to dispose of the present appeal. The Trial Court record has already been requisitioned and has been referred to.
3. The appellant has preferred this second appeal to assail the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dated 06.01.2012, namely, the Additional District Judge-01, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in RCA No. 31/11. By the impugned judgment, the first appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant ( RCA No.31/11) against the judgment of the Trial Court , namely, Senior Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 59/2003 filed by the respondent-plaintiff, has been dismissed, and the First appeal (RCA No. 33/11) preferred by the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed. The respondent-plaintiff had preferred a suit for possession and recovery of damages/mesne profit/rent against the appellant-defendant on the premise that the appellant-defendant was a tenant of the respondent-plaintiff in respect of a shop forming part of premises No. 11-B, West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi-110094 since March, 1988, falling in the revenue estate of village Sikdarpur, Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- excluding electricity charges. The respondent-plaintiff claimed that the tenancy had been created through a written document dated 05.03.1988 (which was led in evidence and proved as Ex.PW1/5). The plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not make payment of rent since March, 1990. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a legal notice dated 02.11.2000 (Ex.PW1/6). The plaintiff vide this notice sought arrears of rent of Rs. 10,800/- for a period of three years, apart from calling upon the defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit to the plaintiff on or before 30.11.2000.
4. The said suit was contested by the appellant-defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable since it is without any cause of action? OPD
(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? OPP
(iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as she is neither the owner nor relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? OPD
(v) Whether the defendant has become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession? OPD
(vi) Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? OPD
(vii) Whether the suit is not maintainable as the proper court fees has not been affixed on the plaint as per market value? OPD
(viii) Whether the suit is barred by Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD
(ix) Relief.
5. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1, one Shri Hari Kishan, Head Clerk/ZI, House Tax Department, Shahdara North Zone as PW2, and Shri Virender Singh, Advocate, as PW3. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and one Shri Gyan Chand as DW2. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined PW4-Chander Prakash, Record-in-Charge, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Nand Nagri Division in rebuttal evidence. The plaintiff in her examination-in-chief on affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) brought on record the notices issued by House Tax Department, MCD as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3, the site plan as Ex.PW1/4, the rent agreement as Ex.PW1/5, the legal notice as Ex.PW1/6, the postal receipt and UPC as Ex.PW1/7 and the AD card as Ex.PW1/8. PW2 proved the copy of the assessment made by the MCD in the year 1985-86 as Ex.PW2/1, the assessment made in the year 1985 as Ex.PW2/2, the objection to the assessment filed by the plaintiff as Ex.PW2/3, copy of the GPA as Ex.PW2/4, agreement to sell as Ex.PW2/5 and receipt Ex.PW2/6. In rebuttal evidence, PW4-Chander Parkash produced the record of electr
