Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Bhagwati Devi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
RFA No. 620 of 2017
Decided On : 09-11-2017
For the Appellants :Ms. Amita Gupta, Mr. Ruga Ram and Ms. Priti Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid proof of tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE - POSSESSION - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 50 - Evidence Act - Section 116 - [KEYWORD] - [POSSESSION] - [Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 50, Evidence Act - Section 116] - The court discussed the ownership of the suit property, the claim of tenancy by the defendants, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court emphasized the importance of proving tenancy and the requirements for valid proof of tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the Evidence Act. The court dismissed the appeal as the defendants failed to prove their tenancy of the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over possession and mesne profits of a property in Delhi. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the property and filed a suit for possession and mesne profits, while the defendants, who alleged to be tenants, contested the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to prove their tenancy of the suit property, and therefore, the suit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits.
Issues: The main issues included the entitlement of the plaintiffs for possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits, as well as the unauthorized possession and tenancy status of the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of valid proof of tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the Evidence Act. It held that the defendants failed to discharge the onus of proof of tenancy, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 22.3.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to the suit property being one room in the property no. 4295, Gali Barna, Basti Nandram, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Trial court has also granted mesne profits at Rs.1000/- per month on the arrears of mesne profits.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs pleaded that they are the owners of the suit property as they are the legal heirs of late Sh. Thakur Dass who was owner of the suit property. It was pleaded that appellants/defendants are the legal heirs of one Sh. Beni Prashad who died on 6.8.2012 and that both Sh. Beni Prashad and appellants/defendants were in unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property being enclosed area of one room in property no. 4295, Gali Barna, Basti Nandram, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and which is shown in red in the site plan filed with the plaint. I may note that the respondents/plaintiffs have claimed that the room or the area in question is not even a room because the case of the respondents/plaintiffs was that late Sh. Beni Prashad, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants was residing in a temporary structure erected on a side wall of the roof of the property of the respondents/plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest and taking benefit of that fact Sh. Beni Prasad had got prepared certain documents with respect to the suit property. The structure/room had become dangerous and MCD had demolished the same but Sh. Beni Prashad again occupied the same and fixed a tarpaulin over the structure. Accordingly, pleading that the appellants/defendants were in illegal occupation of the suit property the subject suit for possession and mesne profits was filed.
3. Appellants/defendants contested the suit and pleaded that they and their predecessor-in-interest were tenants in the suit property since about 80-90 years. It was pleaded that the rent of the property was initially Rs.5/- per month and thereafter it was increased to Rs.80/- per month. Suit was therefore pleaded to be barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. To the extent that respondents/plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Sh. Thakur Dass, the same is not disputed. In fact, the appellants/defendants in the written statement have given a family tree of the respondents/plaintiffs and as per the family tree (as detailed in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment) respondents/plaintiffs are admittedly the co-owners of the suit property.
4. After pleadings were complete, trial court framed the following issues:-
ISSUES
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of possession in respect of property bearing No.4295, Gali Barna, Basti Nandram, Sadar Bazar, Delhi as prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of mesne profits/damages @ Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till handing over the suit property to the plaintiff? OPP
(iv) Whether the defendants are in unauthorized possession of the suit property? OPP
(v) Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit property as tenants? OPD
(vi) Relief.”
5. Trial court took up all the issues for discussion together and these issues were decided in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by observing as under:-
“10. To prove his case, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, plaintiff no.1 appeared as PW-1 and testified his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. On the other hand, defendant appeared as DW1 and testified his affidavit Ex.DW1/A.
11. PW-1 testified that the suit property was owned by Sh. Thakur Dass in terms of the sale deed Ex.PW-4/1 whose translated copy has been proved by PW5 as Ex.PW-5/1 and the suit property was
