Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 10778
Page 1 of 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 22.01.2024 Judgment pronounced on: 20.03.2024 + CM(M) 1568/2019 MANJEET SINGH KOHLI ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. S.K. Sharma and Mr. Tejas Singh, Advs.
versus BALVEEN SINGH CHADHA @ BALVEEN SINGH CHAWLA & ANR ..... Respondents Through:
Ms. Sangeeta Jain, Adv. CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
The main legal point established is the requirement for the petitioner to provide evidence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the arrears of rent under Order XV-A CPC.
Headnote:
Order XV-A CPC - Recovery of Rent - The court dismissed the petitioner's application under Order XV-A CPC for directions to the respondents to deposit arrears of rent and continue to deposit damages/user charges. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the arrears of rent, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages, and permanent injunction against the respondents. The petitioner alleged an oral tenancy agreement with the respondents, who failed to pay rent and other charges, leading to the termination of the tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the arrears of rent, leading to the dismissal of the application under Order XV-A CPC.
Issues: The main issue was the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the arrears of rent, which influenced the court's decision under Order XV-A CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the landlord-tenant relationship and the arrears of rent, as required under Order XV-A CPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application under Order XV-A CPC, finding that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the arrears of rent.
JUDGEMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioner assailing the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the court of Learned Additional District Judge-01 Tis Hazari Courts (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”)
in Civil Suit No. 814/2017, titled as “Manjeet Singh Kohli v. Balveen Singh Chadha @ Balbveen Singh Chawla & Anr.” whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed petitioner’s application under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “CPC”).
2. The petitioner filed suit for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 4,97,330/-, recovery of damages and mesne profits and Page 2 of 9 permanent injunction against the respondents. The respondents filed their written statement to the plaint to which the petitioner filed the replication.
3. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are, that, the petitioner is the owner of the entire ground floor of the property bearing no. J-11/99 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Respondent no. 1 was inducted as tenant in respect to the entire 2nd floor by the brother of the petitioner namely; Nirmal Singh Kohli at a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/- vide registered rent agreement dated 27.10.2006 for a period of 12 months commencing from 01.11.2006. Brother of the petitioner decided to sell his property i.e. 2nd floor of the suit property and hence, asked the respondent no. 1 to vacate the same as it was under his tenancy by virtue of the above- mentioned rent agreement. The respondent no.1 agreed to vacate the suit property on or before 31.12.2007
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit premises of the petitioner was lying vacant. Respondent no. 1 approached the petitioner and requested him to let out the suit premises to him initially for a period of 1 year commencing from 01.01.2008 at a monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/- excluding electricity and water charges. The said agreement was executed however, no written rent agreement was executed between the said parties as respondent no. 1 was already a tenant with the brother of the petitioner and proved to be a good tenant.
5. It is the further the case of the petitioner that on expiry of the aforesaid 12 months, respondent no. 1 requested petitioner to extend the lease of the suit premises for 1 more year. Accordingly, the agreement Page 3 of 9 between the parties was extended orally from 01.01.2009 with an enhancement of rent by 10% and the respondent no. 1 started paying rent @ Rs. 13,200/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. Thereafter, every year the lease has been extended orally by the petitioner on request of the respondent no. 1 with enhancement of rent @ 10% every year. Respondent no. 1 has been paying rent in cash. Petitioner has been issuing the acknowledgement of receipt of rent on a pre-typed receipt brought by respondent no. 1 at the time of payment of rent without retaining any copy of the same.
6. It is further the case of the petitioner that since February 2016, respondent no. 1 has failed to pay rent to the petitioner despite receiving several demands by the petitioner on one pretext or the other.
7. The brother of the petitioner sold his second floor of the property on 09.04.2008 to Neelam Khurana w/o B. S. Khurana by a registered sale deed dated 09.04.2008.
8. Since the respondent no. 1 filed a suit CS SCJ No. 418/2017 for injunction against petitioner in the name of his wife who is respondent no.
2, therefore, the petitioner was not interested to continue respondent no. 1
as his tenant in the suit premises and vide notice dated 24.04.2017, the petitioner terminated the tenancy of the respondent no. 1 and also demanded the arrears of rent from the respondent no. 1.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that on the day of filing of the suit, respondent no. 1 was in due f
