$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 20.11.2024 , + CM(M) 3854/2024 JAGVEER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. L.K. Singh, Advocate.

versus ASHA DEVI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Aishwarya Kane, Advocate. CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM APPL. 67329/2024 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

This application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 3854/2024 & CM APPL. 67328/2024 (stay)

1. The present petition assails the impugned order dated 09.07.2024 and 04.09.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, South, Saket in CS SCJ No. 342/2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that directions issued by the learned trial court in the last para of the order dated 09.07.2024 were illegal, erroneous, unnecessary and uncalled for, CM (M) 3854/2024 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed inasmuch as, once having held that the suit was not barred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and having dismissed the application of the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it was incumbent upon the court to have proceeded with the suit rather than issuing direction for either amending the suit or withdrawing the same with liberty to file a fresh suit.

3. It is argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the concluding para of order dated 09.07.2024, particularly, when in the same order the court had dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the respondent, which clearly implies that the suit was legally maintainable.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the title of the plaintiff is under cloud, inasmuch as, respondent has raised serious objections to the ownership of the suit property, and therefore, petitioner is required to file suit for declaration, possession and injunction in terms of judgment passed in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594

5. Perusal of the record reveals that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent injunction on the ground that respondent was inducted by him as a tenant in the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 6000/- per month vide rent agreement dated 05.10.2018.

6. Respondent filed written statement, stating that she herself was the owner and in possession of the suit property. She stated that CM (M) 3854/2024 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed petitioner was a complete stranger to the suit property and had no title whatsoever in the suit property. She took the stand that in the year 2018, she took a friendly loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- from one Rajender, nephew of the petitioner and that at the time of taking loan, the said Rajender took away the title documents of the suit property which were in the name of respondent on a false pretext of keeping the documents with him as security for the loan. He had also obtained her signatures on some documents on the false pretext that they were related to repayment of the loan.

7. In her application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d), respondent stated that the impugned documents relied upon by the plaintiff were obtained by defrauding the respondent as to the nature of the documents.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (supra) held that where the title of the plaintiff is under cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, such plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.

9. A perusal of the plaint would show that the suit of the petitioner for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages, mesne profits and permanent injunction is based upon the rent agreement between the petitioner as the landlord and the respondent as a tenant and not based on the ownership documents. In Shri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335, the Supreme Court held that in a suit for eviction, the CM (M) 3854/2024 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed tenant is estopped