Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Mohd. Shahdab – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Dhawan – Respondent
RSA 18 of 2023, CM APPL. 2615 of 2023 & CM APPL. 2616 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2023
Rent Agreement - Landlord and Tenant Dispute - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - [Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908] - The court discussed the validity and admissibility of the rent agreement, the possession of the tenant, and the proof of statements made before the Lok Adalat. The court found that the appellant failed to question the admissibility or in-admissibility of the rent agreement and was precluded from raising such factual issues. The court also noted that the best evidence available to deny the possession of the tenant was not produced, leading to adverse inference by the Civil Courts. The court concluded that minor contradictions or non-consideration of minor aspects by the lower courts did not constitute a substantial question of law for interference in the second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the lawful owner, rented out a room to the defendant. The defendant failed to pay rent, leading to a legal dispute over possession and arrears of rent. The plaintiff sought possession, recovery of arrears of rent, and future damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the relationship of landlord and tenant, entitlement of the plaintiff for possession and recovery of arrears of rent, and the validity of the rent agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant failed to question the admissibility or in-admissibility of the rent agreement and was precluded from raising such factual issues. The court also noted that the best evidence available to deny the possession of the tenant was not produced, leading to adverse inference by the Civil Courts. The court concluded that minor contradictions or non-consideration of minor aspects by the lower courts did not constitute a substantial question of law for interference in the second appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant/ tenant against the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court in RCA DJ 55/2020 titled as "Mohd. Shahdab vs. Dinesh Dhawan" dated 28.09.2022, whereby the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was dismissed confirming the judgment and the decree dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court.
A. FACTS AS NOTED BY FIRST APPELLATE COURT
(i) The plaintiff (respondent herein) being the lawful owner of property bearing no.C-355, Chinnot Basti, Multani Dhanda, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Deli-110055 (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") rented out one room (shop no. 3) for carrying the work of kabadi at the ground floor (area measuring 8x10 sq.ft.) in the suit property to the defendant (appellant herein) at the monthly rent of Rs. 11,600/- per month exclusive of other charges in according with the Rent Agreement dated 27.07.2016 signed by the defendant for 11 months.
(ii) It is further averred that the defendant has taken over the physical possession of the tenanted premises from the landlord on 01.07.2016. Therefore, the tenancy will be deemed to reckon from 01.07.2016 till 31.05.2017.
(iii) It is further averred that since 01.11.2016 the defendant has not paid the rent to the plaintiff even after making repeated requests by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff got sent a legal notice dated 21.01.2017 through speed post to the defendant stating therein to pay the arrears of rent and termination of the tenancy thereafter, however, the defendant through his reply dated 26.04.2017 has chosen to give absolutely false, wrong and baseless reply.
The plaintiff made the following prayers:
"(i) Pass a decree of possession with consequential relief may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to restore and handover physical vacant and peaceful possession of a room (shop no. 3) at ground floor ( area measuring 8x10 sq. ft.) in property bearing no. C-355, Chinnot Basti, Multani Dhanda, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 as shown in site plan in Red attached with the plaint. The defendant, his servants, agents may kindly be ordered to handover the possession of the said one room to the plaintiff immediately.
(ii) Pass a decree of recovery of Rs.81,200/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 81,200/- @ Rs.11,600/- p.m. w.e.f 01.11.2016 to 01.05.2017 as arrears of rent to the plaintiff along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount.
(iii) Pass a decree of recovery of future damages, if occurs after May, 2017 @ Rs.12,000/- p.m. onwards in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay the future damages and pendent-lite, if any, to the plaintiff.
(iv) Cost of the suit may also be awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant."
B. WRITTEN STATEMENT:
On the other hand, the defendant (Appellant herein) defended the instant suit by filing Written Statement, wherein it is inter alia contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit because there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property and there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as landlord and tenant. It is further stated that father of the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff. The rent agreement dated 27.07.2016 relied upon by the plaintiff is a false and fabricated document, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.
C. After filing replication by the plaintiff, the following issues were framed by Ld. Trial Court vide its order on 08.08.2018:
i. Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPP
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reli
The best evidence available to deny the possession of the tenant should be produced, and failure to question the admissibility of crucial documents may preclude raising factual issues in an appeal.
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the license to evict a licensee, and the defendant must prove genuine tenancy through admissible evidence. Courts can reject suspicious document....
Possession can be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC when there is an admission of tenancy, despite disputes over rent or security. Lack of evidence supporting claims weakens the tenant's position.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Plaintiff must prove the relationship of landlord and tenant to be entitled to the reliefs sought in an eviction suit.
The admission of tenancy and the legal notice served by the plaintiffs justified the decree for possession. Lack of evidence to support the appellant's plea regarding the monthly rent led to its reje....
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
