Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
FARAH - Appellant
Versus
SHAHNAZ BEGUM - Respondent
RFA 386 of 2016
Decided On : 05-03-2018
For the Appellant :Ms. Pooja Sarwal & Mr. Roop Ram Sarwal, Advocates.
The main legal point established is that the caretaker, watchman, or servant does not acquire any right or interest in the property, and the protection of the Court can only be granted to a person with a valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement, or license agreement in his favor.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Section 50 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the Defendant, claiming to be the rightful owner of the property. The Defendant, who is the Plaintiff's aunt, was inducted as a caretaker and a rent agreement was executed, but no rent was paid. The Plaintiff sought possession of the property as the Defendant refused to vacate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Defendant was inducted as a caretaker and not as a tenant, and no rent amount was paid, establishing that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and whether the Defendant was liable for possession and mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence and established legal principles to determine that the Defendant was a caretaker and not a tenant, and thus, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, specifically Section 50, were not applicable.
Final Decision: The court passed a decree for possession in favor of the Plaintiff, as the Defendant was in possession of the property as a caretaker at the request of the Plaintiff, and no amount was payable to the Plaintiff for use and occupation of the property.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of judgement and decree dated 2nd January, 2016 by which the Trial Court has dismissed the suit for possession and mesne profits on the ground that the Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter 'Defendant') is a tenant of the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter 'Plaintiff') and the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, 'DRC Act').
2. Admittedly, the Defendant is the aunt (Mausi) of the Plaintiff. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she is the rightful owner of the property bearing No.17/17-V, Khasra No.17 & 18, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi-110053, measuring 70 square yards (hereinafter, 'suit property'). It is the case of both parties that in 2010, some unwanted elements were trying to take over possession of the suit property. At that stage, the Plaintiff had allowed the Defendant to live in the property as a caretaker. Thereafter, the Defendant’s son was arrested under some criminal complaint and the Plaintiff argues that in order to enable the Defendant to have proof of address and meet him in jail or in Court, a rent agreement dated 20th September, 2011 came to be executed between the parties. Defendant in the written statement, admits that a rent agreement was executed in her favour by the Plaintiff, but denies that her son being in jail was the reason for it.
3. The Defendant was repeatedly asked to vacate the suit premises but did not vacate. On 20th May, 2013 the Plaintiff filed a written complaint with the police against the Defendant. The Defendant then filed a suit against the Plaintiff wherein the Plaintiff gave an undertaking that she would not dispossess the Defendant, except in accordance with law. A legal notice was then issued by the Plaintiff on 25th June, 2013 asking the Defendant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. Due to the Defendant’s refusal to vacate the suit property, the present suit came to be instituted for possession, damages and mesne profits.
4. In the written statement, it is the case of the Defendant that the agreement dated 20th September, 2011 specified the monthly rent to be Rs.1,500/- p.m. The Defendant does not place on record any evidence to show that actual rent was ever paid by the Defendant. The so called rent agreement is also not registered.
5. In the Trial Court, the Plaintiff led the evidence of PW-1, herself; PW-2, Smt. Zeenat Zahan; PW-3, Mohd. Sameer; PW-4, Smt. Parveen Begum. In Ex. D-1, the statement of Smt. Shanaz Begum/DW-1, there is no averment that she has ever paid rent to the Plaintiff. In fact, it is admitted in her cross-examination that :
“I am a tenant in the aforesaid address as mentioned in my affidavit Ex. D.1 since 01/04/2011. It is true that I am regular in payment of rent since beginning. I have not paid the rent for the last four months. Vol., the plaintiff did not receive the rent. However, I sent the rent by way of money order, but the plaintiff refused the same. It is true that I have not filed any money order receipt on record.
.........
Earlier to the non-payment of rent for the last four months, I was paying the rent by way of money order to the plaintiff. It is true that I have not filed any receipt on record regarding payment of rent. I do not remember the exact date, month and year of lastly paid the rent by way of money order.”
She, thus, does not deny the ownership of the Plaintiff. She also admits that she has not filed any receipt on record evidencing the payment of rent. It is further admitted by the Defendant that after preparing of the rent agreement, she got all her ID cards, Aadhaar Card, etc. issued on the basis of the address of the suit property.
6. The evidence of DW-2, Sh. Muner Mansouri shows that it is claimed by him that the rent was paid in presence of his mother but he did not remember the exact date when the rent was paid. DW-2 could also not confirm that the rent agreement was prepared in his presence. His depositi
