SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 3640

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Bhupinder Kalra - Appellant
Versus
Paramjit Kaur & Ors. - Respondents
RFA 60 of 2016 & CM No. 3975 of 2016
Decided On : 29-09-2016

Important Points

The court emphasized that the mere pendency of an appeal does not automatically stay proceedings in the suit and that the appellant's failure to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses led to the decision against the appellant.

Subject

Civil Law - Property Law

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.96, O.2 R.2, O.41 R.5, O.43 R.1(a), O.18 R.1
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT : .
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT : .
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT : S.108, S.105(b)(d), S.105(b)(h), S.108(b)

Headnote

CPC - Ejectment of Tenant - 1908 (CPC) - Section 96 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The appellant was ejected from the shops on the first and second floors above the ground floor shop and was ordered to pay arrears of rent and damages. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs and decreed the suit. [ISSUES] The issues included determination of tenancy, ownership of the first and second floor shops, and arrears of rent and damages. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the appellant's failure to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses led to the decision against the appellant. The court also emphasized that the mere pendency of an appeal does not automatically stay proceedings in the suit. [FINAL DECISION] The appeal was dismissed and the FDR deposited by the appellant was to be encashed and released to the respondents/plaintiffs.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K.C. Mittal, Ms. Ruchika Mittal
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Gera

JUDGMENT :

1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 8th October, 2015 [of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-05 (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in CS No.1439/2011 (Unique ID No.02401C0338702011)] of ejectment of the appellant from the shops on first and second floors above the shop bearing no. 4, WZ-296, G-Block, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs.4,30,000/- towards arrears of rent and of Rs.30,000/- per month towards damages/use and occupation charges w.e.f. June, 2011 till the delivery of possession.

2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 3rd February, 2016 when on being told that CM(M) No.872/2015 preferred by the appellant against the order in the suit from which this appeal arises closing the right of the appellant to cross examine the witnesses of the respondents/plaintiffs was also pending consideration, the appeal was ordered to be listed along with the said CM(M) No.872/2015. However it appears that CM(M) No.872/2015 was disposed of on 11th February, 2016 i.e. before this appeal could be listed therewith. Accordingly, notice of this appeal was issued and Trial Court record requisitioned. The appeal, on 3rd March, 2016 was admitted for hearing and considering the nature of the controversy, was posted for hearing on actual date and subject to the appellant/depositing the entire decretal amount due towards mesne profits i.e. Rs.4,30,000/- plus Rs.30,000/- per month w.e.f. June, 2011 till March, 2016 execution was stayed. Vide subsequent order dated 28th March, 2016 the appellant was permitted to deposit Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the name of the Registrar General of this Court on the condition that the interest on the FDR shall accrue to the benefit of the final order and will not be credited to the account of the appellant.

3. The counsels were heard on 2nd May, 2016, 9th May, 2016 and 11th May, 2016 and judgment reserved.

4. The respondents no.1,3&4 namely Smt. Paramjit Kaur, Sh. Darpreet Singh and Smt. Simran Kaur (respondent no.2 Sh. Hardev Singh is the husband of the respondent no.1 Smt. Paramjit Kaur and was not a party to the suit and appears to have been erroneously impleaded) instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading (i) that the respondents/plaintiffs had earlier let out the ground floor shop no.4, WZ-296, G-Block, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi to the appellant/defendant on 15th February, 2003 and which tenancy was renewed from time to time and the last registered Tenancy Agreement was dated 20th March, 2009 and the last paid rent of the said shop was Rs.35,000/- per month; (ii) that the respondents/plaintiffs had separately sued the appellant/defendant for ejectment from the said ground floor shop; (iii) that the appellant/defendant, after taking the ground floor shop on rent, requested the respondents/plaintiffs to construct two new additional shops on the first floor and second floor of the said ground floor shop and to which the respondents/plaintiffs agreed; (iv) that the respondents/plaintiffs let out the two new additional shops on the first and second floors to the appellant/defendant from 1st July, 2009 on a rent of Rs.30,000/- per month; (v) that the appellant/defendant paid the rent of the said first and second floor shops up to 31st March, 2010 and stopped paying rent w.e.f. 1st April, 2010; and, (vi) that the respondents/plaintiffs vide notice dated 3rd May, 2011 determined the tenancy of the appellant/defendant of the said first floor and second floor shops but the appellant/defendant had failed to vacate the same. Accordingly, the suit for the reliefs of ejectment of the appellant/defendant from the said first and second floor shops, recovery of arrears of rent/mesne profits and future mesne profits was filed.

5. The appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement pleading (i) that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant betwe
















































































1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top