Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 5543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Subhra Kabasi - Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet - Respondent
RSA 208 of 2023, CM APPL. 57969 of 2023 & CM APPL. 57970 of 2023
Decided On : 08-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Parikshit Mandal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
None, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the landlord-tenant relationship, termination of tenancy, and challenges to the landlord's title are governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Additionally, a second appeal only lies on a substantial question of law.

Headnote:
Landlord and Tenant - Execution Proceedings - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Nopani Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Santokh Singh (HUF); 2008 Vol 2 SCC 728 - Cement Corporation India Ltd. vs. Bharat Bhushan Sehgal, RSA No. 46/2012 - Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1187 - Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamal and others (2020) 19 SCC 57
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant sought a stay of execution proceedings after the Trial Court passed a possession decree in favor of the Respondent, citing a landlord-tenant relationship and outstanding rent. The Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's decision. The Appellant disputed the ownership of the suit premises, claiming it belonged to the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship was established, the tenancy was terminated, and the Appellant's objection to the landlord's title was barred by the Indian Evidence Act. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the possession decree in favor of the Respondent.
Issues: Existence of landlord-tenant relationship, termination of tenancy, ownership of suit premises, and entitlement to possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to establish the landlord-tenant relationship, termination of tenancy, and estoppel on challenging the landlord's title. It also emphasized that a second appeal only lies on a substantial question of law.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the possession decree in favor of the Respondent, and stated that the ownership rights of the Central Government would be decided in appropriate proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 57970/2023

1. This is an application filed by Appellant seeking a stay of the execution proceedings in execution petition bearing no. 470/2020 pending before the Civil Judge - 06, Central District, Tis Hazari Court (`Executing Court').

2. The Trial Court vide judgement dated 14.08.2019 has passed a decree of possession in favour of the Respondent after returning a finding that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which stands validly terminated. The Appellate Court vide judgement dated 10.10.2023 has upheld the order of the Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the last rent was paid in August 2019 and since then, no further amount towards the use and occupation charges, has been paid to the Respondent.

4. As per the averments made in the plaint, admittedly, the property i.e., House No 27, 1st Floor, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-1l0054 (`suit premises') was let out to the Appellant herein at Rs. 5000/- per month. During the oral arguments it was admitted that for the period September 2019 to November 2023. Thus, the rent for 51 months remains outstanding and as on today a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- is due and payable by the Appellant herein.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant does not have the financial wherewithal to pay the outstanding arrears of rent.

6. It has been enquired if the Appellant is ready to peacefully vacate the suit premises within reasonable period of time in view of the concurrent judgments of the Courts below passing a decree of possession in favour of the Respondent.

6.1. The Appellant on instructions from Appellant's daughter, who is present in the Court, states that the Appellant is unwilling to vacate the suit premises.

7. In view of the admitted financial inability of the Appellant to pay the arrears of rent and to pay current use and occupation charges, grant of stay would be inequitable in the facts of this case as the balance of convenience is not in favour of the Appellant.

8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed and the Executing Court is at liberty to proceed with the execution of the decree of possession.

RSA 208/2023

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that since the interim application has been dismissed, the appeal itself be heard and adjudicated upon.

10. The second appeal has been filed impugning the judgement and decree 10.10.2023 passed by Additional District Judge-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in RCA No. 24 of 2023 titled as Subhra Kabasi v. Ranjeet (`First Appellate Court') whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order and part decree of the Trial Court passed by the Civil Judge- 06, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in favour of the Respondent vide order dated 14.08.2019 in CS SCJ no.1508/2018 (`Trial Court').

11. The Appellant is the original Defendant and the Respondent is the original Plaintiff in the civil suit.

11.1. The suit was filed by the original Plaintiff for seeking recovery of the possession of the suit premises and for recovery of money and future mesne profits and for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from selling, alienating, gifting, mortgaging, parting with possession (full or part) or from creating any third-party interest in respect of the suit premises.

12. For the ease of reference, the parties to the present appeal are referred according to their original status before the Trial Court

13. The Plaintiff filed the suit in his capacity as the owner and landlord of the suit premises. As averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff let out the suit premises to the Defendant initially for 11 months commencing from 06.12.2015 to 5.11.2016 vide rent agreement dated 12.12.2015. However, as per the Plaintiff, the Defendant defaulted in payments of rent from April, 2016 in breach of her obligations. The Plaintiff has pleaded receipt of a legal notice dated 07.10.