Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
VIJAYAN - Appellant
Vs.
HARINDER KAUR - Respondent
RSA 5/2016
Decided On : 18-05-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Ruchir Batra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate.
A tenant cannot claim protection under the Rent Control Act if he denies the landlord's title or claims ownership of the property. The protection under the Rent Control Act is available only to undisputed tenants. If a tenant repudiates the title of the landlord and claims ownership in himself, he cannot seek protection under the Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
adverse possession - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 111(g) - A lease of immovable property comes to an end by forfeiture if the lessee renounces his character as a tenant by claiming title in himself. Delhi Rent Control Act - The protection under the Rent Control Act is available only to undisputed tenants. If a tenant denies the landlord's title or claims ownership in himself, he cannot seek protection under the Rent Control Act. The Delhi Rent Control Act applies only if the area in which the property is situated is specified in the Schedule by a notification.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff claimed herself to be the registered owner of a house and filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages against the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant contested the suit on various grounds including non maintainability of the suit and lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The Trial Court held that the respondent/plaintiff had the locus standi to file the suit and awarded damages to the respondent/plaintiff. The First Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The appellant/defendant appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal without costs.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the respondent/plaintiff had proved her ownership over the suit property and that the appellant/defendant was in illegal occupation of the property. The appellant/defendant claimed to be a tenant since 1983, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the tenancy. The Courts held that the appellant/defendant's claim of adverse possession and his denial of the landlord's title made him a trespasser and not a tenant. The Courts also found that the Delhi Rent Control Act did not apply to the suit property as there was no notification specifying its applicability. The High Court upheld the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The tenant cannot claim protection under the Rent Control Act if he denies the landlord's title or claims ownership of the property. The protection under the Rent Control Act is available only to undisputed tenants. If a tenant repudiates the title of the landlord and claims ownership in himself, he cannot seek protection under the Rent Control Act. A lease comes to an end by forfeiture if the lessee renounces his character as a tenant by claiming title in himself. The tenant is estopped from challenging the landlord's title or right to let out the premises. A tenant who denies the landlord's title or claims ownership is not recognized as a legal tenant in the eyes of the law. A tenant can be evicted by a civil suit if he is a trespasser. The Delhi Rent Control Act applies only if the area in which the property is situated is specified in the Schedule by a notification.
Result: The High Court dismissed the appeal without costs.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. The present second appeal on behalf of the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2014 passed in Civil Suit No.491/2014, preferred by respondent/plaintiff, Harinder Kaur, seeking recovery of possession and damages of Rs.54,000/- against the appellant/defendant which was decreed as also against the judgment dated 20.12.2014 passed in RCA No.3/2015 by the Additional District Judge, South District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi whereby the judgment of the Trial Court has been upheld and affirmed.
2. The respondent/plaintiff claimed herself to be the registered owner of a house bearing No.195-A, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi, which stood transferred in her name by a registered gift deed dated 20.04.2006 by her mother Smt. Surinder Kaur who has been living with her for a long time.
3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the appellant/defendant illegally entered the suit premises and occupied one room and did not vacate the premises despite notice to him. A civil suit, therefore, was filed for recovery of the possession of the room which was in unauthorized occupation of the appellant/defendant as well as for the damages.
4. The appellant/defendant contested the aforesaid suit on various issues including non maintainability of the suit and lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the case.
5. The case of the appellant/defendant before both the Courts below has been that he has been residing in a part of the suit premises since 1983 as a tenant of one Amar Singh (father of the respondent/plaintiff) on a monthly rental of Rs.200/- which was inclusive of water and electricity charges. There was no written agreement regarding tenancy but by virtue of an oral concession, it was agreed upon by the landlord (Amar Singh) that if separate electric connection would be taken by the appellant/defendant, the monthly rental would be reduced to Rs.100/-. The electric connection was taken in his name by the appellant/defendant but the lesser rent as agreed upon by Amar Singh was not acceptable to him. On being threatened of being dispossessed, way back in the year 1994, appellant/defendant had preferred a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction (Suit No.411/1994; new number 679/2000) against aforesaid Amar Singh in which there was an admission by Amar Singh that the appellant/defendant herein was his tenant and that he (Amar Singh) would not dispossess him without the due process of law.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant/defendant that the aforesaid fact which was brought on record before the Trial Court was never adverted to by the Trial Court and the same was ignored by the First Appellate Court as well. It was, therefore, urged by the appellant/defendant that the suit preferred by the respondent/plaintiff was based on totally false and concocted pleas and the only purpose was to file a suit for possession before the Civil Judge who did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the issue. There never existed any landlord-tenant relationship between the appellant and the respondent and the gift deed dated 20.04.2006 (that is how the suit property was transferred in the name of respondent/plaintiff) did not give any right, title or interest to the respondent/plaintiff in the suit property. The other major objection which was taken by the appellant/defendant before the Trial Court was that the suit was barred by law of limitation as the suit had been filed on 27.03.2010 i.e. after many years of the appellant/defendant coming in possession of the suit premises as a tenant.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court vide order dated 18.02.2011 framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a de
