The onus to prove ownership and landlord-tenant relationship lies with the parties. Lack of proper title documents and failure to establish ownership and tenancy rights can lead to dismissal of a suit.

RSA 109/2016

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff impugning the judgment dated 19th December, 2015 passed in RCA No.31/2015 whereby the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/defendant under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure and reversed the judgment and decree dated 10th March, 2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No.177/2014.

2. The Learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 10th March, 2015 has decreed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of rent/damages. As a result of the judgment impugned of the First Appellate Court, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff stands dismissed.

3. Briefly stating, Civil Suit No.177/2014 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant for recovery of rent/damages for use and occupation in respect of the shop in Property No.16/1541-E, Arya Samaj Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (shown in red in the site plan). The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased property No.16/1541-E, Arya Samaj Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 from Smt.Barji Devi wife of late Sh.Ganga Ram vide sale document dated 24th August, 1990 for sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The physical possession of the suit property was handed over to him except the shop in possession of the respondent/defendant of which constructive possession was given to him by Smt.Barji Devi. The respondent/defendant, tenant of Smt.Barji Devi was occupying the said shop on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. After the property was purchased by the appellant/plaintiff, Smt.Barji Devi directed the respondent/defendant to pay the future rent to him, however, the respondent/defendant failed to pay the rent despite service of demand notice dated 27th June, 1998. Thereafter the appellant/plaintiff served another demand notice dated 28th April, 2011 which was also neither replied nor rent was tendered in compliance thereof. While pleading that the respondent/defendant never paid any rent to him the plaintiff restricted his claim to Rs.36,000/- i.e. to a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the suit in May, 2011.

4. The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant claiming himself to be the owner in respect of the suit shop and denying the title of the appellant/plaintiff as owner/landlord. The defence of the respondent/defendant is that Smt.Barji Devi herself had no title in the said property which she could transfer to the appellant/plaintiff. The alleged sale documents are unregistered documents. The father of the appellant/plaintiff and the father of the respondent/defendant occupied the land underneath the structure of premises No.16/1541-E, Arya Samaj Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 in the year 1948. Some temporary structure was raised over the land and pukka structure was constructed later on. Since Ganga Ram, father of the appellant/plaintiff and Sohan Lal, father of the respondent/defendant were fast friends and hailed from Rajasthan, it was their understanding that whenever a pukka structure is raised, Ganga Ram would be allowed to raise construction on the first floor and father of the respondent/defendant will have no objection to the said construction. The shop in question being on the ground floor, is exclusive property of respondent/defendant and the appellant/plaintiff had no right or title or interest over the same.

5. It was also pleaded that in the year 1998 eviction petition bearing No.E-130/1998 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff on 21st October, 1998 for seeking his eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The said eviction petition was dismissed on 27th February, 2003 and the appeal bearing RCA No.336/2003 preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was also dismissed on 30th May, 2003. After lapse of about eight years from that date, the appellant/plaintiff filed this false suit claiming himself to be owne