Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Tejbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
M/S. Saya Automobiles (P) Ltd. – Respondent
RFA No.134 of 2005
Decided On : 06-11-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Mohit Monga, Advocate
The onus of proof lies on the party asserting a legal right, and failure to provide evidence to establish ownership and landlord-tenant relationship can result in the dismissal of the claim for recovery of rent.
Headnote:
CPC - Recovery of Rent - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? - [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 96]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent claimed on account of the defendant's occupancy of the leased property. The defendant contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's ownership and entitlement to the claimed rent.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the leased property and the lease agreement, and thus, was not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent from the defendant and the relief of mandatory injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the leased property and the lease agreement, leading to the conclusion that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. As a result, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant.
Final Decision: The court decided in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of rent.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.11.2004 whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.3,58,424/- claimed on account of arrears of rent. At the outset I would like to note that there was a second relief claimed in the suit of the direction against the respondent/defendant to demolish certain illegal construction in the tenanted premises, however counsel for the appellant/plaintiff states that this relief is not pressed.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff claimed that the respondent/defendant was let out an area of 5,500 sq. yards situated in Khasra nos. 288/2, 291/2, 293/2 and 292/2 in village Siraspur, Delhi. This area of 5500 sq. yds. was let out to the respondent/defendant in terms of the lease deed dated 28.2.1989. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the property was let out to the respondent/defendant under the lease deed dated 28.2.1989 by the mother of the appellant/plaintiff Smt. Harjeet Kaur along with another co-owner Sh. Ved Parkash Yadav. The rate of rent was fixed at Rs.44,000/- per month. Later on the respondent/defendant purchased 1725 sq. yds. from one lessor/co-owner Sh. Ved Parkash Yadav and whereafter a fresh lease was entered into between three lessors being the appellant/plaintiff (for his share of land of one bigha/1008 sq. yds.), his mother Smt. Harjeet Kaur and another co-owner Sh. Rakesh Anand. It was pleaded that the respondent/defendant used to pay rent of Rs.8,772/- to the appellant/plaintiff as appellant/plaintiff's share of the rent and last cheque in this regard was drawn in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 2.6.1997. Simultaneously a cheque of Rs.9,972/- was drawn in favour of Smt. Harjeet Kaur and a cheque of Rs.6,600/- was drawn in favour of Sh. Rakesh Anand. Sh. Rakesh Anand has expired leaving behind his wife and daughter and who have become co-lessors along with the appellant/plaintiff and his mother Smt. Harjeet Kaur with respect to the suit property. It was pleaded that the respondent/defendant promised to vacate the suit property in March, 1998 but did not do so and in fact made some illegal constructions. The appellant/plaintiff pleads in the plaint that a demand notice dated 7.4.2001 was served upon the respondent/defendant claiming arrears of rent as also interest which had no effect and therefore the subject suit was filed claiming arrears of rent of Rs.3,58,424/- along with interest.
3. Respondent/defendant contested the suit and denied that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the property let out to the respondent/defendant. It was pleaded in the written statement that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to produce any documents relating to his title and also that there is no appropriate and complete address of the suit land which is filed. The respondent/defendant denied that about one bigha of land was let out by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant at rent of Rs.8,772/- per month. It was pleaded that the rent as stated in the plaint was collected by the appellant/plaintiff prior to the purchase of the land by the respondent/defendant and that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the claim of rent stated in the plaint. The respondent/defendant admitted that it had issued the cheque dated 2.6.1997 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.8,772/-. It was also admitted by the respondent/defendant that the lease deed dated 28.2.1989 was signed by him with Sh. Ved Parkash Yadav and others but that the subject lease agreement had come to an end after the respondent/defendant purchased the land from its owner namely Sh. Ved Parkash Yadav and which it was claimed would be proved in the suit. It was also pleaded that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant/plaintiff was as per the directions of Sh
