Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11214
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J
DINESH CHAUHAN – Appellant
Versus
SITWAT KHALID – Respondent
C.R.P. 35/2022 & 36/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. L.S. Solanki, Dr. Anu Solanki, Ms. Preeti Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Muntazir Mehdi
The court emphasized that for the Slum Areas Act to apply, a landlord-tenant relationship must exist, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 - Section 19 - Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The trial court ruled that the relationship of landlord and tenant must exist for the Slum Areas Act to apply, which was not established by the defendants. The court emphasized that the averments in the plaint must be considered as a whole and that evidence would be needed to resolve disputes regarding ownership and tenancy. (Paras 11-21)
(B) Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The court reiterated that the merits of the case cannot be decided at this preliminary stage and that the plaint must disclose a cause of action for the suit to proceed. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a trial court order dismissing their application to reject the plaint based on claims of ownership and tenancy under the Slum Areas Act. The court noted that the plaintiff claimed the defendant was a trespasser, not a tenant, thus bypassing the requirements of the Slum Areas Act.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's dismissal of the application was upheld, indicating that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established and that the suit could proceed to trial for further evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed, which would invoke the Slum Areas Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Slum Areas Act's provisions only apply where a landlord-tenant relationship is established, which was not the case here. The court clarified that the merits of the case would be determined at trial.
Result: Both revision petitions dismissed.
1. This common judgment shall decide the present Civil Revision Petition filed in terms of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 1 assailing the common impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed 1 CPC C.R.P. 35/2022 & 36/2022 Page 2 of 12 by the learned Civil Judge-03-C, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi2 in CS No. 928/2019 and CS No.3111/2017 in the case titled „Shahid Ahmed Ferozie vs. Dinesh Chauhan‟ and „Shahid Ahmed Ferozie vs. Ram Pratap & Ors.‟ respectively, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners.
2. Although the aforesaid two revision petitions are against different petitioners/defendants, the factual and circumstantial narrative in both cases are similar and even the impugned orders, separately passed in the aforesaid two cases, are ditto except for the narrative of facts with regard to the description of the properties.
Hence, the two revision petitions can be conveniently disposed of altogether by this common order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, one Mr. Agha Mohd. Qasim S/o Agha Mohd. Hasan R/o Hyderabad, was the sole owner and in possession of the land area measuring 10 Bigha 10 Biswa, previously known as Mohalla Qasimpura, now known as Baghichi Peerji, Ram Bagh Road, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi-110007. That Agha Mohd. Qasim, being the owner, had full control and power to sell and transfer the entire land area either temporarily or permanently. Later, Mohd. Qasim leased out the entire aforementioned property/land area in perpetuity to Smt. Begum Jaan W/o Shaikh Firoziddin Japan Wale (the great grandmother of the plaintiff/Sitwat Khalid and the grandmother of Shahid Ahmed Ferozie i.e. father of the plaintiff) 2 Trial Court C.R.P. 35/2022 & 36/2022 Page 3 of 12 against a sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- along with all the ownership rights vide transfer/sale documents dated 03.03.1943 including the lease deed, which was duly registered with the Sub- Registrar, Delhi. On 22.05.1979, Begum Jaan died leaving behind her two sons namely Mohammad Ahmed Ferozie and Mohammad Yusuf Ferozie (both now deceased), who had acquired the entire property i.e. Baghichi Peerji, including the suit property in question.
4. The suit property, along with other properties situated/located in Calcutta as well as in Delhi including the properties bearing No. 10335 to 10555, Baghichi Peerji, were owned and possessed by the father of the plaintiff i.e. Shahid Ahmed Ferozie by virtue of a compromise decree in suit No. 379/1990 before the High Court of Calcutta and he became the absolute owner of the said property. Later, Shahid Ferozie executed a General Power of Attorney dated 07.02.2018, which was registered on 28.02.2018 with the Sub- Registrar-I, Delhi and thereafter, he gifted all his unsold properties in favour of the plaintiff/Sitwat Khalid and executed a deed of Declaration-cum-Memory of Oral Gift dated 09.04.2018. In conclusion, the plaintiff is now the absolute owner of the entire property (consisting „Ground to Top floor‟) including other properties bearing No. 10335 to 10555 in the same locality. C.R.P. 35/2022
5. The Petitioner/Dinesh Chauhan, who is the defendant in the main suit bearing No.928/2019 before the learned Trial Court filed his written statements alleging the fact that the present suit property falls C.R.P. 35/2022 & 36/2022 Page 4 of 12 under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 3 and that the plaintiff/Sitwat Khalid has not obtained the requisite permission from the slum authorities under Section 194 of the said act for the purpose of filing the suit for possession, damages and mandatory injunction. Further, it was argued that the alleged oral gift is not permissible under the Gift Act and a gift deed is required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908, which is not registered in the present case. Lastly, the landlord-tenant relationship was also denied by the defendant.
6. Per Contra, the respondent/S
