Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Puneet Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar Singhal and Another – Respondents
RFA No. 744 of 2016
Decided On : 13-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Thakur Sumit.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Mr. Sushil K. Pandey, Mr. Aayush Agrawal.
The court recognized the Plaintiffs' title based on the Defendant's admission of their grandmother's ownership and the lack of competing title claims. The admissibility of evidence and the Defendant's contradictory claims were crucial in reaching the decision.
Headnote:
Trespass - Property Dispute - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - [Trespass] - [Property Dispute] - [Section 14(a), (b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958] - The court discussed the ownership and tenancy rights of the parties, the admissibility of evidence, and the issue of limitation. The key legal provisions discussed include the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the Indian Evidence Act. The court's decision was influenced by the evidence presented, the admission of tenancy, and the lack of competing title claims.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs sought possession of a store on their property, claiming inheritance from their grandmother. The Defendant, a tenant, denied the Plaintiffs' title and claimed possession since 33 years. The Plaintiffs alleged trespass and sought damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the Plaintiffs, holding that the Defendant's tenancy was not established, the suit was not barred by limitation, and the Plaintiffs had adequate title against the Defendant. The court allowed the Plaintiffs' claim for possession and damages.
Issues: The court analyzed the valuation of the suit, limitation, jurisdiction, and the admissibility of evidence. The Defendant's contradictory claims regarding tenancy and title were also considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The Defendant's admission of the Plaintiffs' grandmother's ownership, the admissibility of evidence, and the lack of competing title claims influenced the court's decision. The Defendant's contradictory claims were not accepted, and the Plaintiffs' title was recognized.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Plaintiffs' claim for possession of the store and awarded damages for use and occupation. The Defendant was directed to hand over possession and pay damages and interest as per the court's decision.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff No. 1 challenging the impugned judgment dated 18th August, 2015 by which the suit filed by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter, Plaintiffs) was dismissed.
2. Shri Puneet Prakash and Shri Varun Prakash sons of Shri J.P. Sharma claimed to be owners of property bearing No. HS-19, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048 which consists of a house along with two tenanted shops located on the ground floor facing market road.
3. It is the Plaintiffs’ case that their grandmother Smt. Sona Devi purchased the property on 2nd June, 1994 from Smt. Parmodini Saxena wife of Shri V.K. Saxena; Shri Sharad Kant Saxena and Sh. Shri Kant Saxena, both sons of late Shri V.K. Saxena, as described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The Plaintiffs pleaded that they have inherited the property from their grandmother by Will dated 25th October, 1996. According to the plaint, the Defendant was the tenant of shop No. 1 of the suit property, consisting of two portions, admeasuring 14 x 15 feet and store/office admeasuring 14 x 13 feet on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- by virtue of rent deed dated 27th November, 1975 entered into between the Defendant and Shri V.K. Saxena, the erstwhile owner. According to the Plaintiffs, after their grandmother purchased the property, a meeting was held with the Defendant wherein he agreed to pay the rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month, excluding water and electricity charges and accordingly the rent for the month of July, 1994 was paid by the Defendant. The property was mutated in the name of the grandmother of the Plaintiffs on 8th August, 1994. However, thereafter the Defendant reverted back to paying Rs. 300/- as rent and vide letter dated 17th September, 1996 sent Rs. 8,100/- as the rent for the period 1st July, 1994 to 30th September, 1994 which was returned by Smt. Sona Devi. The Will was thereafter executed by her on 25th October, 1996 and she passed away on 4th December, 1998.
4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that on 3rd January, 2005, they came to know that the Defendant had illegally trespassed into a storeroom at the back of the shop by breaking the wall. The same was sought to be proved by means of a site plan in which the store was marked in yellow colour. The Defendant also failed to pay the rent as per the agreement at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed an eviction petition against the Defendant before the Assistant Rent Controller (ARC), Delhi which is stated to be pending. The Plaintiffs also got issued notice dated 8th January, 2008 demanding vacant possession of the store and the same was not handed over. Since the store was not part of the tenanted property, the subject suit was filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a) pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in respect of small store ad-measuring 8 x 10, more specifically shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed with plaint forming residential part of house property No. HS-19, Kailash Colony, New Delhi;
(b) pass an order as per order XX rule 12 CPC for payment of damages @ Rs. 2500/- p.m. for use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendant for the period 24.1.2005 to 23.1.2008 amounting to Rs. 90,000/- and also pendent-lite and future damages/ mense-profit from the date of institution of the suit till actual delivery of possession of the suit premises alongwith interest @ 18% per annum thereon;
(c) award cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant;
(d) any other or further relief which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.”
5. The Defendant filed his written statement and claimed that he is in possession of the store since the inception of his tenancy i.e. 33 years
