Delhi District Court
Prem Lata vs Suraj Prakash Garg on 3 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI,SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS (SHAHDARA).
Civil Suit No.9223/16
CNR No. DLSH03-000729-2014
SMT. PREM LATA (since deceased)
Through LR Sh. RAKESH SABHARWAL
...............Plaintiffs
Vs.
SH. SURAJ PRAKASH GARG (since deceased)
Through LR Sh. Sandeep Garg
............Defendant.
1.Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal S/o Sh. Ravi Raj Sabharwal 49/3, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
2. Sh. Ravi Raj Sabharwal S/o Late Sh. Fakir Chand Sabharwal R/o 49/3, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
3. Mrs. Indu Mehra W/o Mr. Sandeep Mehra R/o C-1/50, Sadarjung Development Area, New Delhi
4. Mrs. Bindu Khanna W/o Mr. Sheel Khanna R/o W-107, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .1/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.01.03 17:22:51 +0530 ...Plaintiffs Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg (since deceased) Through LR Sh. Sandeep Garg Son of Late Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg R/o D-68, Vivek Vihar Delhi-110095.
...Defendant
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFIT
Date of Institution : 02.05.2014
Date of Reserving Judgment : 16.12.2025
Date of Decision : 03.01.2026
Decision : Dismissed
1. The suit in hand has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of possession and mesne profit.
2. Briefly stating, plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff, being the owner, had let out a vacant plot of land, situated at Plot No.12, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "suit property"), admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards, to the defendant, vide an unregistered written lease deed dated 19.01.1978, for a period of 11 months, commencing with effect from 15.01.1978, at a monthly rent of Rs.1,250/-, excluding electricity charges, payable in advance. That the said tenancy stood determined by efflux of time on the expiry of the period of 11 months from the date of commencement of tenancy. Thereafter, no fresh lease agreement was written or executed, Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .2/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:22:56 +0530though the tenancy was held over by the defendant, on monthly basis commencing from the 1st day of each English Calendar month and expiring on the last day of the said month. That the original signed lease deed dated 19.01.1978, was handed over to the defendant and the copy thereof was retained by the plaintiff. That as per the terms, mutually agreed upon between the parties herein, it was agreed that the plaintiff would not object in case the defendant raises construction on the suit property. It was further agreed that upon expiry of the lease period or its earlier determination, the defendant would hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff without removing the construction etc. and without claiming any compensation thereof. That the defendant, after having been let out the suit property of land, raised construction on the same. Although, the said tenancy stood determined by efflux of time, however, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 19.07.2013, upon the defendant, thereby terminating the tenancy of the defendant, with the expiry of six months from the date of said notice and further called upon the defendant to vacate the suit property on the expiry of 20.12.2013 and handover its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff. That the defendant sent a reply dated 17.08.2013, through his counsel. That, as the tenancy of the defendant stands terminated, therefore, the occupation of the suit property, by the defendant, with effect from 21.12.2013, is illegal and unauthorized. Therefore, the defendant has rendered himself liable to pay the mesne profit/damages for unauthorized use of the suit property, with effect from 21.12.2013. It is averred that the defendant is thus liable to vacate the suit property and to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month with effect from 21.12.2013, till vacation thereof for Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .3/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:2026.01.03 17:22:59 +0530
unauthorised occupation of the suit property. It is thus prayed to pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, in respect of the plot of land, situated at Plot No.12, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi, admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards. To further pass a decree in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- towards damages/mesne profits for unauthorized occupation by the defendant, for the period 21.12.2013, till date in favour of Plaintiff and against defendant and a decree for future damages in terms of Order XX Rule 12 CPC, on account of illegal occupation and user of the suit property, from the date of the institution of the suit, till the date of vacation by the defendant, of the suit property in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
3. Summons were served upon the defendant whereupon defendant has filed the written statement wherein he has admitted that the rate of rent of the suit property was Rs. 1,250/- and the tenancy month commenced on the 1st day of each calendar month. It is stated that the lease deed has been forged by the plaintiff and defendant has never executed any such deed nor any lease deed was handed over to the defendant nor any copy thereof was retained by the plaintiff. Further, it is admitted that the plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 19.07.2013 to the defendant. However, it is alleged that the plaintiff and her husband illegally connived with the counsel of the defendant and as such counsel for the defendant didn't suitably replied the said legal notice and omitted the true facts and reply as been tutored by the plaintiff and her husband and further counsel for the defendant did not supply copy of the said reply to the defendant.
Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .4/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:02 +0530
4. It is further stated that the suit property is not a plot but is a duly constructed premises and the same has been constructed by the plaintiff herself in the year 1971 and plaintiff is also paying due property house tax for same since year 1971 to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and as such as per the provisions of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act there is a clear bar on Civil Court to try and entertain any such suit for the eviction of tenants protected therein from any premises. That plaintiff herself has duly admitted before the M.C.D. and in her testimony before a court in Civil Suit bearing No. 156 of 1977 titling Prem Lata versus M.C.D. that she has herself constructed the demised premises and the suit property in dispute is within definition of "premises" duly covered under the provisions of D.R.C. Act. That plaintiff has also sent a Legal Notice to the Tenant of other part of same premises as on 15/07/1996, and on the strength of said Legal Notice even filed a Eviction Petition bearing No. 829 of 1998 titling Prem Lata Versus Prem Prakash Mittal, under Section 14 (1)(a) of the D.R.C. Act and also obtained relief from the Court and vide Judgment dated 12-7-1999, the then Ld. Additional Rent Controller has duly held the suit property to be "premises". That plaintiff has intentionally hided said facts from this Court. That the plaintiff inspite of obtaining relief under the D.R.C. Act, filed a Civil Suit bearing Civil Suit No. 77 of 2009, titling Prem Lata Versus Prem Prakash Aggarwal, for possession of said premises falsely claiming the same to be a piece of plot at the time of letting out and the then Ld. A.D.J., dismissed the said suit with costs of Rs. 10,000/- vide judgment and decree dated 07/06/2011. That the plaintiff has filed a report for the purpose of valuation/assessment of the rate-able value of the suit and in the Digitally signed by Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .5/23 PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:06 +0530 said valuation report, plaintiff had duly admitted that she had duly constructed the same. That plaintiff and her husband also filed false cases against another tenant Sh. Suresh Rastogi and the said cases were compromised before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further, that the MCD had conducted survey of entire properties of Delhi in the year 1971 and year 1976 and duly acknowledged the entire property of the plaintiff to be duly constructed. Thus, it is prayed that the suit in hand is not maintainable before this court and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Replication to the written statement of defendant was filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein she denied the averments of the written statement and further reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the suit in hand, the plaintiff as well as the defendant expired, therefore, their legal heirs were impleaded as a party to the suit in hand vide order dated 30.05.2024 and 01.10.2021, respectively.
7. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 13.01.2015:
(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act? Onus on parties.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession of the suit property, as claimed? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-, as claimed? OPP.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of future damages from the date of filing of the suit till the date of vacation of the suit premises, as claimed? OPP.
Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .6/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:10 +0530
(v) Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay exemplary cost to the defendant for filing a false case? OPD.
(vi) Relief
8. Thereafter, plaintiff was asked to lead her evidence. In order to prove her case, plaintiff got examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Ravi Raj Sabarwal (husband of plaintiff) as PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He also relied upon following documents :-
(i) Copy of sale deed dated 23.12.1969, i.e. Mark A.
(ii) Site plan, i.e., Ex. PW1/2.
(iii) Copy of lease deed dated 19.01.1978, i.e., Ex. PW1/3.
(iv) Legal notice dated 19.07.2013, i.e., Ex. PW1/4.
(v) Postal receipts, i.e., Ex. PW1/5.
(vi) Reply to the legal notice, i.e., Ex. PW1/6.
9. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he was the owner of the property bearing Plot no. 12, Friends Colony, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi prior to 1969 and he sold the same to his wife but he does not remember the year as the matter is very old. He further stated that he does not remember upto which period he had paid the house tax. That he does not remember whether his wife had ever paid house tax or not. He denied that the site plan Ex. PW1/2 is not correct and stated that the site plan is as per the site which was let out to the defendant. He admitted that the plot no. 12 is 535 sq. yds. and denied that there is a big shed covering whole of the 535 sq. yds. On being asked specifically about Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .7/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:13 +0530 receiving any notice from the MCD in the year 1971 raising demand of Rs. 85,000/- towards illegal construction of the property in question, he stated that he was having seven plots at that time and he used to receive notices. He further admitted that plot no. 368 to 375 were owned by him at that time and plot no. 368 and 369 were sold to his wife in the year between 1969 to 1971. He further admitted that the amended sale deed Ex.PW1/D1 was executed by him and it also finds mentioned the municipal number. He stated that he does not remember whether the notice and Survey Report dt. 01.04.1971 Ex. PW1/D2 was served upon him or not. On being confronted with the certified copy of Valuation Report by Sh. B. S. Char, Consulting Engineer in respect to the suit property Ex. PW1/D3 he stated that he does not remember whether he had filed the valuation report Ex.
PW1/D3 in MCD or not. He further stated that he is not aware if the Notice-cum-Survey Report dt. 30.12.1976 Mark "A" was received by his wife.
10. A Court Observation was also made during the cross-
examination of PW-1 wherein the MCD official who has been summoned for was asked by Ld. Counsel for defendant to trace notice cum survey report dt. 30.12.1976 in his record which he has brought. The summoned witness, i.e., MCD official after going through his record stated that the notice cum survey report dt. 30.12.1976 is not a part of the record which he has brought.
11. PW-1 further stated in his cross-examination that he is not aware of the judgment titled as Smt. Premlata Vs. Sh. Prem Prakash Mittal dt. 12.07.1999 (Ex. PW1/D4) passed by the court of the then Ld. ARC. He further stated that in the year 1977, Digitally Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .8/23 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:16 +0530 there were 4-5 tenants in the property bearing plot no. 11 and 12 of the plaintiff. That he does not remember the names of tenants of the adjoining property. That the area of plot no.12 is 535 sq. yards. He further denied that there are four tenants occupied in different portions in the plot no.12, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. He voluntarily stated that he had sold around half of the property, however, he cannot specify the exact area. He denied that he had sold 150 sq. yards out of 535 sq. yards in plot no. 12 to two different persons vide separate sale deeds. He further voluntarily stated that he had sold two plots measuring 125 sq. yards each from plot no.12 to one person. He further stated that there is no other tenant of plaintiff in plot no.12 except defendant. He admitted that Sh. Prem Prakash Mittal is also the tenant in plot по.12. He further stated that plaintiff had not made any construction in plot no.12 since the year 1977 till date. He stated that it might be correct that the municipal number of plot no.11 and 12 is 368 and 369. He further admitted that plaintiff had filed eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(a) Delhi Rent Control Act qua the tenant Sh. Prem Prakash Mittal for plot no.12. He admitted that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits/damages against Sh. Prem Prakash for area measuring 150 sq. yards forming part of plot no.12 and he might have appeared as a witness in the said case. He stated that he does not know whether there is any electricity meter in the factory premises of the defendant and again stated that there must be electricity meter if he is running factory. He further admitted that all house tax records of the plaintiff's property are in joint possession of himself and plaintiff. He stated that he cannot produce the house tax records. He admitted that they have Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .9/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:19 +0530 been paying house tax to the house tax department, MCD qua plot no.12. He further stated that the lease deeds are executed by the plaintiff in the manner recording the terms as agreed between the plaintiff and the respective tenant. That plot no.12 has been allocated by him privately. He denied that they are claiming more than the area purchased by them qua properties bearing municipal number 368 and 369. He further denied that the total area as per the sale deed and rent deed is more than the area purchased by them.
12. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff in her evidence and as such plaintiff's evidence was closed by PW-1 vide his statement dated 03.05.2018.
13. Thereafter, defendant was asked to lead his evidence. Defendant got examined 04 witnesses in his evidence as.
14. DW-1 Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg (defendant) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the written statement. He relied upon the following documents :-
(i) Certified copy to copy of the legal notice dated 15.07.1996, i.e., Ex. DW1/1 (objected to as to mode of proof),
(ii) Certified copy of the eviction petition no. E-829/98 and judgment, i.e., Ex. DW1/2 (colly) (objected to as to mode of proof),
(iii) Photocopy of sale deed dated 23.12.1969, i.e., Mark X,
(iv) Photocopy of MCD survey report dated 30.12.1976 for the year 1976, i.e., Mark Y. Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .10/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:22 +0530
15. In his cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of plot no.12, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi and that he used to pay rent in favour of plaintiff. He further admitted that the tenancy commenced on 15.01.1978 at the rate of rent of Rs.1250/- per month. He denied that the said tenancy was for 11 months. He stated that it might be correct that the area of the plot no.12, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi is 535.18 sq. yards. However, he denied that he had taken on rent a vacant plot of land ad-measuring 150 sq. yards. He voluntarily stated that he had been rented out a built up premises ad-measuring 150 sq yards. He further denied that a written lease deed dated 19.01.1978 had been executed between him and the plaintiff and that the original lease deed dated 19.01.1978 is in his possession or that he has deliberately not produced the same. He further denied that the tenancy stood terminated upon efflux of time after expiry of 11 months period from 15.01.1978. He further voluntarily stated that no fixed tenure had been agreed. He denied that he had raised construction by himself on the vacant piece of land ad-measuring 150 sq. yards that had been rented out to him and volunteered that he had taken on rent a built up premises ad-measuring 150 sq. yards. He denied that the plaintiff had not raised any construction on the plot of land that had been rented out to him. He further denied that the plaintiff has not forged or fabricated any document and that the plaintiff has never filed any false case and that the suit filed by the plaintiff against Mr. Suresh Rastogi was not a false case. He further denied that the plaintiff has not made any admission in any legal proceedings, documents or suit that she had raised construction on the portion rented out to him and that his tenancy Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .11/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:26 +0530 was validly terminated. He denied that he is liable to vacate the suit property or that he is liable to pay damages @ Rs.30,000/- per month w.e.f. 21.12.2013 till vacation of suit property. He admitted that the valuation report Ex. PW1/D3 pertains to two plots bearing old numbers 368 and 369, gali no.4, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi and that document Ex. PW1/D2 is the MCD survey report which pertains to plot no. 368 to plot no. 375.
16. Thereafter, DW-2 Sh. Suresh Rastogi was examined by the defendant. He led into evidence his affidavit Ex. DW2/A wherein he supported the version of the defendant. He further relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Certified copy to copy of the civil suit no. 156/1977, i.e., Mark A.
(ii) Survey report of MCD for the year 1976, i.e., Mark B.
(iii) Certified copy to copy of the photographs, i.e., Mark C.
(iv) Certified copy to copy of the contempt petition bearing criminal no. 2349/2002, i.e., Mark D.
17. In his cross-examination, DW-2 stated that Sh. Sanjay Rastogi, the counsel for the defendant in this suit is his son and they stay together in the same house. That he has come to depose today on the asking of the defendant. That the composite size of plot no. 11 and 12 is about 1200 sq.yds. as per his knowledge. The size of plot no.12 would be around 550 sq.yds. He denied that the plaintiff had been let out a vacant plot admeasuring 150 sq.yds from plot no.12 to the defendant. He voluntarily stated that he had been let out a constructed building in the year 1977.
Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .12/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:30 +0530 He further deposed and that he has no knowledge as to whether any written lease deed dated 19.01.1978 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant. He denied that a vacant plot had been let out and there was an understanding between plaintiff and defendant that the plaintiff will not raise any objection on the defendant raising construction on the said plot of land. He denied that the defendant on its own raised construction on the plot of land let out to him by the plaintiff and that no construction had been raised by the plaintiff on the plot of land let out to the defendant. He admitted that Ex.PW-1/D2 pertains to 8 plots bearing no. 368 to 375. He stated that the assertion that suit bearing CS no. 156/1977 pertained to two properties bearing municipal no. 368 and 369 is a matter of record. He further admitted that plot no. 12 or any part thereof had never been let out to him. He further denied that the portion that was let out to the defendant neither had any construction on it nor the same was covered with asbestos sheet. He admitted that the property which was under his tenancy had subsequently been purchased by his wife. He further denied that the settlement that was arrived at between him and the plaintiff was as per their mutual will and not because of filing of any contempt petition.
18. Further, DW-3 Sh. Kapil Sharma was summoned as a witness who brought the original assessment file containing property tax details with respect to properties bearing no. 532- 535 (old no. 368-369), Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Delhi. He stated that the owner of said properties is Smt. Prem Lata w/o Sh. Ravi Raj. That the document Mark B is the survey report for the year 1976 issued by their department and the particulars therein are being filled by their department. That the internal noting Digitally Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .13/23 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:33 +0530 dated 23.11.1987 and 11.01.1988 (Ex. DW3/1) in respect of property no. 532-535. Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Delhi regarding pending disposal of the assessment. The said file also contains the valuation report dated 30.12.1987 (Ex. PW1/D3) and the assessment order dated 13.01.1988 (Ex. DW3/2) with respect to said property and the survey report dated 15.03.1977 for the period 01.04.1976 (Ex. DW3/3). That the copy of notice dated 29.03.1977 bearing no. 75702 (Ex. DW3/4) and copy of the survey report for the year 1977 dated 20.03.1978 (Ex. DW3/5).
That the copy of the order dated 27.07.1977 and the judgment dated 26.10.1977 in suit no. 156/1977 and RCA No. 250/1979 are Ex. DW3/6.
19. In his cross-examination, DW-3 deposed that the internal noting Ex. DW3/1 pertains to properties no. 532 to 535, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Delhi. He admitted that the assessment order Ex. DW3/2 is a common assessment order pertaining to said properties and that the survey report Ex. DW3/3 also pertains to the said properties. He further admitted that the said survey report is of more than one property. He further stated that he could not tell the area/size of each of the properties mentioned in the said survey report. He admitted that document Ex. DW3/4 as well as Ex. DW3/5 pertain to more than one property i.e. property no. 532 to 535. He voluntarily stated that the owner of the said properties is one and the same person.
20. Further, DW-4 Ms. Meera Sharma, was examined as a summoned witness and placed on record her authorisation letter as Ex.DW4/1 to depose in the present matter. She brought on record a Compact Disc (CD) containing electronic record pdf of Digitally Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .14/23 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:36 +0530 RFA 271/1979 titled Suresh Rastogi Vs. Prem Lata (Ex.DW4/2) (objected to the mode of proof) and Certificate u/s 65 B(4)(c) of the Evidence Act (Ex.DW4/3) (objected to the mode of proof).
21. No other witness was examined in defendant evidence.
Accordingly, the same was closed vide separate statement dated 29.11.2025 of Ld. Counsel for defendant.
22. Final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties heard. Case file perused carefully.
ISSUE WISE FINDING :-
Issue No. 1 :-
23. The onus to prove this issue was upon the parties.
24. In the case in hand, the fact that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and that the defendant is a tenant therein is not disputed by the defendant. The same is also admitted by the defendant/DW-1 in his cross-examination. It is pertinent to note here that although the plaintiff has averred that initially the tenancy was for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 15.01.1978 and thereafter, it was a month to month tenancy whereas the defendant has alleged that the tenancy was a month to month tenancy since its inception, however, the rate of rent at which the suit property was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant is admitted by both the parties to be Rs.1,250/- per month.
25. It is the case of the plaintiff that she had let out the suit property to the defendant which was a vacant plot of land at the time of letting out, whereas, it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff had let out a premises to the defendant which had Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .15/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:40 +0530 already existing construction thereupon. Now, if it is found that the suit property was a vacant piece of land at the time of its letting out, then the suit for possession of the suit property would lie in a civil court otherwise the appropriate and competent forum for the plaintiff to approach would be the court of a Rent Controller under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act.
26. In order to prove that the suit property was a vacant plot of land, the plaintiff has relied upon copy of a written lease deed (Ex. PW1/3) allegedly executed between plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit property. The original of the said lease deed is stated by the plaintiff to be in the possession of the defendant. However, perusal of the said copy (Ex. PW1/3) reveals that the same does not bear the signature of either the plaintiff or the defendant. PW-1 has deposed in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A that the lease deed dated 19.01.1978 was signed and executed by the plaintiff and the defendant in his presence, meaning thereby both the plaintiff and defendant had duly signed the lease deed dated 19.01.1978 in his presence then why in the copy of the said lease deed (Ex. PW1/3), the space for signatures of parties and witnesses is left blank, has not been explained by PW-1. If the document Ex. PW1/3 is the true copy of the original lease deed dated 19.01.1978, then it must also have had the copies of signatures of plaintiff, defendant and PW-1 himself, however, it is not so. Moreover, since the defendant has taken a stand in the written statement itself that no such written lease deed was ever executed between the parties then it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to duly prove the copy of the lease deed by leading into evidence its true copy clearly reflecting the Digitally Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .16/23 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:44 +0530 signatures of both the parties as well as the witnesses, however, the plaintiff has failed to do so. Thus, since the lease deed (Ex. PW1/3) is merely a typed copy without any signatures, therefore, the same can not be relied upon and is of no help to the plaintiff.
27. Further, plaintiff has relied upon the reply to the legal notice (Ex.PW1/6) sent by the defendant. It is her case that she had served a notice dated 19.07.2013 (Ex.PW1/4) upon the defendant whereby she had terminated the tenancy of the defendant. That in the said notice, it is clearly stated in para no.1 that the defendant was let out a vacant plot of land. That in the reply dated 17.08.2013 (Ex.PW1/6), the defendant has admitted this fact since it is stated in its para no.1 as under:-
1. That the contents of para no.1 of the notice need no reply being matter of fact.
28. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that this is a clear admission on the part of the defendant that what was let out to him was a vacant plot of land and the defendant cannot now change his stand and cannot claim that there was already existing construction thereupon. In this regard, ld. counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the decisions in cases Oxbridge Associates Limited v. Atul Kumra 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10641 and Rajesh Kumar Dixit v. Somdutt Sharma 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8820.
29. Further, it is also contended by ld. counsel for plaintiff that no suggestion was given by ld. counsel for defendant to PW-1 that there was any connivance between plaintiff and the counsel who had drafted the reply Ex.PW1/6 or that the suit property was not a vacant plot of land, and, therefore, the testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted in this regard. In this regard, reliance has Digitally Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .17/23 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:23:51 +0530 been placed upon the decision in the case of Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi 2001 7 Supreme Court Cases 69.
30. As far as the reply to the legal notice (Ex.PW1/6) is concerned, then pertinently the defendant has categorically pleaded in his written statement as well as in affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A that the same is a manipulated document prepared by the counsel in connivance with the plaintiff. Evidently, the said reply does not bear the signatures of the defendant and the same is only signed by an Advocate Sh. Sanjay Gupta. Since the defendant has pleaded connivance between the Advocate, Sh. Sanajy Gupta and the plaintiff therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to examine the said Sh. Sanjay Gupta in her evidence to prove that there was no such connivance as alleged and that the reply Ex.PW1/6 was prepared at the instance of the defendant himself. However, the plaintiff failed to do so. The said connivance / manipulation as alleged by the defendant cannot be completely ruled out because the counsel for the defendant, who is representing him in this case is different from the counsel Sh. Sanjay Gupta, who had drafted and sent the reply Ex.PW1/6. It is a settled position of law that the plaintiff's case has to stand on its own legs and it is for him to first prove his case and he cannot take any benefit of the weakness of the defendant's version. Thus, it was for the plaintiff to lead into evidence the cogent proof that the suit property was a vacant plot of land at the initial stage of letting out and it cannot rely upon the so-called admission of the defendant in the reply Ex.PW1/6 which has been pleaded by the defendant to be a manipulated document. Thus, this court is of the view that the reply Civil Suit No.9223/16 Digitally Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .18/23 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:24:03 +0530 Ex.PW1/6 is also of no help to the plaintiff and can not be relied upon.
31. In the case of Oxbirdge Associates Limited (supra) there was no such claim made by the defendant that the correspondence with the plaintiff was not done by him or was not done at his instance or that the said correspondence was manipulated by the plaintiff. It was merely pleaded by the defendant therein that because the said correspondence mentioned that it was "without prejudice" therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that a clean and unequivable admission in inter partes correspondence entitles the plaintiff to a decree. Whereas, it is not so in the case in hand. Here, there is no such plea of the defendant that the reply Ex.PW1/6 was sent with an understanding that it was "without prejudice" to the rights and liabilities of the defendant. Here the clear stand taken by the defendant is that the said reply is the result of connivance between plaintiff, her husband and the counsel who drafted the reply because of which the true facts were omitted in the reply. Therefore, this court is of the view that the facts and circumstances of the aforecited case are different from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and thus, are not applicable to the case in hand. Similarly, in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) the plea of the defendant that the reply to legal notice was prepared in connivance with the plaintiff was found to be not tenable because in the said case the advocate who had sent the reply to the legal notice had also filed the written statement on behalf of he defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff against him. Whereas, as already discussed hereinabove, in the case in Digitally Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .19/23 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:24:07 +0530 hand, the counsel for the defendant representing him in the present case is different from the one who had sent the reply Ex. PW1/6. Thus, the best recourse available to the plaintiff was to examine the said Advocate Sh. Sanjay Gupta so as to bring the true and correct facts before the Court, however, the same was not done by the plaintiff.
32. Further, in the case of Rajinder Pershad (Supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if you dispute the correctness of the statement of a witness then you must give him the opportunity to explain him statement by drawing his attention to that part of it which is objected to as untrue. In the case in hand, while cross examining PW-1, Ld. Counsel for defendant has putforth the suggestion that the plaintiff has filed a false claim knowingly and deliberately. This court is of the view that this suggestion denies the entire claim of the plaintiff including the claim that the suit property was a vacant piece of land and was initially let out for a period of 11 months and that a written lease deed Ex.PW1/3 was also executed in this regard. Thus, it cannot be said that the testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted in the any manner. Therefore, this court is of the view that the aforecited decision is also of no help to the plaintiff.
33. Per contra, the defendant has led into evidence the valuation report Ex.PW1/D3 to prove that construction was in existence upon the suit property prior to 1978, when the same was let out to the defendant. Perusal of the said report reveals that it pertains to the period 1975-76. Thus, it pertains to the period prior to the date 15.01.1978 when the suit property was let out to the defendant. Further, this report is in respect of property no.532-535 (Old No.368-369), Gali No.4, Friends Colony, G.T. Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .20/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:24:11 +0530 Road, Shahdara, Delhi. In his cross examination, PW-1 has deposed that it may be correct that the municipal number of plot no.12 (wherein the suit property is situated) may be 369. Thus, PW-1 has neither admitted nor denied that the municipal number of plot no.12 is 369 which in this Court's view is a deliberate concealment on his part. However, from the copy of amended sale deed Ex.PW1/D1, it is evident that the municipal number of plot no.12 is 369. This amended Sale Deed Ex.PW1/D1 was put to PW-1 during his cross examination to which he has admitted that he had executed the same in favour of the plaintiff and it also finds mention of the municipal number. Thus, there is no embargo in saying that the valuation report Ex.PW1/D3 is in respect of the plots which also includes plot no.12, wherein the suit property is also situated. (old municipal no. being 369) In column no.5 of this report, the brief description of the property is "Industrial Tin Sheds". Further in column no.26 wherein the details of tenants, portion under their occupation, monthly rent etc. have been sought, it is stated by the plaintiff in reply to the said column as "not applicable" as the sheds were let out since long and hence the assessment to be done on standard rent basis under Section 6(1) of DRC Act. Further, in the said report in Annexure 'A', Part-II-Valuation, the cost of construction done in the year 1955-60, 1969-70 and 1970-71 is shown to be at the rate of Rs.1,75,000/-. Thus, it is evident from the valuation report Ex.PW1/D3 that even prior to 1978, Industrial Tin Sheds were in existence in the suit property. The original of the said valuation report was produced before the Court by a summoned witness i.e. Assistant Zonal Inspector, Sh. Dharmender Kumar, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the same.
Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .21/23 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:24:15 +0530
34. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has contended that the valuation report (Ex.PW1/D3) pertains to properties bearing no.368-369 and not exclusively to property no.369 (old no.). That the reference of industrial tin sheds in the said report is not in respect of property no.369 (old no.). However, this Court is of the view that had it been so then it would have been specifically stated / mentioned in the report Ex.PW1/D3 that there is no industrial tin sheds in property no.369 (old no.) and the same is only in property no.368 (old no.) but it is not the case here. This valuation report clearly finds mention that construction in the form of industrial tin sheds was in existence in the year 1975-76 i.e. prior to 15.01.1978. Similarly, in the survey reports Ex. DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/3, it is mentioned that tin sheds are in existence in plot no. 12. Apart from these documents, defendant has also led into evidence the documents pertaining to litigation between plaintiff and other tenants, however, this court is of the view that the same is not relevant for the purposes of this case and is of no help to the defendant because every case has to be decided on the basis of its own peculiar facts and circumstances. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove that it had let out a vacant piece of land to the defendant vide lease deed dated 19.01.1978 and rather, the defendant has duly proved that the plaintiff had let out the suit property to the defendant which already had construction raised thereupon in the form of industrial tin sheds and thus, it is a "premises" as would fall under Section 2(i) of the DRC Act. As such, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred as per Section 50 of Digitally signed by Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .22/23 PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.03 17:24:19 +0530 the DRC Act. Thus, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2 TO 4 :-
35. These issues are being taken up together. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. In view of findings given in issue no.1, these are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO. 5 :-
36. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit in hand is hereby dismissed with costs. This issue is decided accordingly. RELIEF :-
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit in hand is hereby dismissed with costs.
38. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
39. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedPronounced in Open Court by PRAGATI
Date:
on January 3, 2026 PRAGATI 2026.01.03
17:24:23
+0530
(PRAGATI)
Senior Civil Judge-cum RC
KKD/SHD/DELHI/03.01.2026
Civil Suit No.9223/16 Mr. Rakesh Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Suraj Prakash Garg Pg no .23/23