RSA 79/2022

Page 1 of 57

$~84(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 8^th August, 2022

Pronounced on:17^th August, 2022

+

RSA 79/2022, CAV 220/2022, CM APPL.33525/2022, CM

APPL.33526/2022

SMT MANJULA AGGARWAL & ORS.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv.

with Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, Adv.

versus

SH VINOD KAKKAR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS

& ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Chetan Sharma and Mr. Yashpal Singh,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

%

17.08.2022

1.

Vinod Kakkar, Vijay Kakkar and Swati Khurana, as the

plaintiffs, instituted Suit No. CS 613232/16 against Manjula

Aggarwal, Anil Aggarwal and Rekha Aggarwal as the defendants

before the learned Senior Civil Judge (the learned SCJ). The plaintiffs

are the respondents before this Court and the defendants are the

appellants, and would be referred to as such, except where their

individual names (sans patronymics) are used.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003080

RSA 79/2022

Page 2 of 57

2.

The suit pertains to a property located at 24, Patel Road, West

Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 which shall, therefore, be referred to

as “the suit property”.

The Suit

The Plaint

3.

The respondents claimed to have purchased the suit property

from M.R. Sethi (HUF) vide registered sale deed dated 16^th November

2009. At the time, Brij Mohan Aggarwal, the husband of Manjula and

the father of Anil and Rekha was occupying part of the suit property

as tenant. There is a dispute as to whether the premises, let out to Brij

Mohan Aggarwal, consisted of two bed rooms, one drawing room

with one store, one kitchen and two bath rooms on the first floor of the

suit property or included, in addition, half of the terrace of the suit

property. This aspect of the dispute is of considerable significance, as

would become apparent presently.

4.

The plaint further averred that, after purchasing the suit

property from M.R. Sethi (HUF), the respondents-plaintiffs wrote to

Brij Mohan Aggarwal, requiring him to attorn to the respondents.

The respondents also instituted eviction proceedings against Brij

Mohan Aggarwal under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1)¹

114.

Protection of tenant against eviction. –

(1)

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order

or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in

favour of the landlord against a tenant:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003080

RSA 79/2022

Page 3 of 57

[hereinafter “Section 14(1)(a)”] of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

(the DRC Act) which were, subsequently, withdrawn by them on a

technical ground.

5.

According to the respondents, and as averred in the plaint, vide

notice dated 9^th December, 2009, addressed to Brij Mohan Aggarwal,

the respondents terminated his tenancy. The said notice read thus:

“Date. 09.12.2009

Registered A.D./U.P.C.

SHRI BRIJ MOHAN AGGARWAL

R/O 24, FIRST FLOOR,

PATEL ROAD, WEST PATEL NAGAR,

NEW DELHI.

Dear Sir,

Under and on behalf of the instructions of my client SHRI

VINOD KAKAR, S/O SHRI G.R.KAKKAR, MRS. VIJAY

KAKKAR, W/O SHRI VINOD KAKKAR, BOTH

RESIDENT OF 49/27, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW

DELHI AND MRS. SWATI KHURANA, W/O SHRI

RAJAN KHURANA, R/O AP-22, SHALIMAR BAGH,

DELHI, I serve upon you with the following notice:-

1.

That my clients are the joint owners having 1/3

undivided share each in the entire property, except two shops

on the Ground Floor, bearing No. 24, Patel Road, West Patel

Nagar, New Delhi, which they purchased by virtue of

Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed

manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the

following ground