Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Kranti Arora - Appellant
Versus
DIGJAM Ltd. - Respondent
RFA(OS) 7 OF 2011 and CM APPL. 43534 OF 2021
Decided On : 26-04-2023
Trespasser - Property Dispute - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - 1971 Agreement, 1984 Agreement, Supreme Court Orders - The court discussed the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to the suit property and the rights and obligations of the parties under the 1971 and 1984 Agreements. The court concluded that the respondent was not a trespasser but a tenant amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, and the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages against the respondent, claiming trespass. The respondent objected, citing the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the previous settlement agreements between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not a trespasser but a tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Act.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the ownership and possession of the suit property, and the relationship between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's status as a tenant was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the suit for possession was not maintainable in a civil court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision that the suit for possession was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 07.12.2010., dismissing the suit of the plaintiff (herein the appellant) for recovery of possession and damages against the defendants (herein the respondent) in respect of property/flat bearing no. 12, situated at 3-4, South End Lane, New Delhi (herein referred to as the suit property).
2. The facts, as observed by the Ld. Single Judge, has been presented in the most convoluted manner but with some effort have been chronicled and are not in dispute. Briefly stated, Smt. Birender Amarjit Singh had inducted M/s. General Marketing & Manufacturing Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘GMMCL’) as a tenant in the property bearing no. 3-4, South End Lane, New Delhi in 1968. Subsequently, the owners decided for building and development of multi-storey Group Housing scheme in the property in question. Smt. Birender Amarjit Singh, the Land lady, entered into an Agreement dated 23.07.1971. in respect of the property in question with GMMCL. According to its Clause 9, the term of the Agreement was for 10 years. It read as under:
3. Thereafter, Smt. Birender Amarjit Singh, Mr. Inder Vijay Singh, Ms. Tavleen Amarjit Singh and Ms. Uday Hardev Singh (collectively described as ‘Singhs”) entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 08.09.1979. with M/s. Kailash Nath & Associates for building and development of multi-storey Group Housing scheme in the property in question. The Agreement gave right to the Builder, Kailash Nath Associates to sell and dispose of residential flats after they were constructed.
4. Disputes arose about handing over of the flat in property in question in the Multi Storey Building in terms of 1971Agreement and GMMCL initiated litigation which reached Supreme Court. The matter was eventually settled and Smt. Birender Amarjit entered into an Agreement dated 21.08.1984. with GMMCL (the tenant) on the basis of earlier Agreement dated 23.07.1971. and agreed that one flat of 1800 sq. ft. situated on the first floor shall be given on rent by Smt. Birender Amarjit Singh to GMMC, and the possession of said flat shall be handed over within 10 days of grant of Completion Certificate for said building. This settlement was incorporated in the Order dated 25.09.1984. of Supreme Court.
5. In the meanwhile, GMMCL entered into a Deed of Assignment dated 30.11.1987. with O.P Khaitan (HUF) and assigned its rights in the suit premises to O.P Khaitan (HUF).
6. Thereafter, the appellant, Kranti Arora entered into a Tripartite Agreement dated 30.01.1989. with Singhs and partners of M/s. Kailash Nath Associates for purchase of a flat admeasuring 2200 sq. ft which is the suit property and paid Rs. 6,90,000/- to Kailash Nath Associates towards the booking amount for a flat to be constructed in the proposed complex. Clause 15 of this Tripartite Agreement authorised the Singhs to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the flat to GMMCL which would be deemed and treated as handing over of the peaceful possession to the plaintiff i.e. the buyer subject to the plaintiff having paid all the entire amount due to the sellers/Singhs and other authorities within the stipulated period. On 19.02.1990., the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 6,90,000/- vide Draft No. 683219 dated 19.02.1990. against the receipt issued by M/s. Kailash Nath Associates. The appellant also became member of Guari Apartments Society having his residence and being in occupation of flat bearing no. 12, 3-4 South End Lane, New Delhi. The flat was hypothecated by the appellant with New Bank of India which opened a loan account no. 533/38 in the name of appellant. On 31.05.1991., New Bank of India issued Letter dated 13.05.1991.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to determine the status of the respondent as a tenant and the bar on filing a civil suit for po....
The mandatory nature of Section 14(2) of the DRC act and the landlord's remedy to file a civil suit for possession when the tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship.
Upon the expiration of a lease, if not renewed, the tenancy reverts to a month-to-month basis, which can be terminated with proper notice.
The denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant and its claim of ownership in respect of the suit property did not bar the suit from being maintainable before the civil court.
An application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, could not be treated as res judicata as same are applicable only to findings which are given after a full-fledged trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
