Delhi District Court
Devender Singh Yadav vs Munni Lal And Ans on 10 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA JINDAL, ASCJ-CUM-JSCC-CUM-GJ
(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 473/17
SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
JUDGMENT
Shri Devender Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh Yadav R/o House No. 3/269, Dakshinpuri Dr. Ambedkar Nagar New Delhi-110062 ...Plaintiff VERSUS.
1. Shri Munni Lal (since deceased) S/o Shri Srichand Through LRs a. Sh. Satpal Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Munni Lal R/o Property bearing No. J-1st, 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 62 b. Sh. Arun Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Munni Lal R/o Property bearing No. J-1st, 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-
62D/o Lt. Sh. Munni Lal c. Smt. Asha, W/o Sunil Kumar R/o Property bearing No. J-1st, 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 62 d. Smt. Bind D/o Lt. Sh. Munni Lal R/o Property bearing No. J-1st, 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:07:08 CS SCJ 473/17 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 1/47
2. Sh. Bhoop Singh S/o Sh. Sukh Lal Vihar, New Delhi - 62 R/o J-1 99A, Gal No. 2 Sangam Vihar New Delhi - 110062 ...Defendants.
Date of Institution :- 29.04.2017 Date of reserving of judgment:- 05.11.2024 Date of judgment:- 10.12.2024 The Case
1. The present case revolves around a dispute concerning property ownership, possession, and the alleged landlord-tenant relationship between the Plaintiff, Sh. Devender Singh Yadav, and the Defendant, the late Munni Lal (now represented by his legal heirs). The property in question is identified by different numbers in the pleadings--House No. 435-A (claimed by the Plaintiff) and House No. 433 (New)/436 (Old) (claimed by the Defendants).
2. The Plaintiff asserts ownership of the property based on documents such as a General Power of Attorney, an Agreement to Sell, and other related instruments, allegedly executed in his favor by one Satbir Singh in 1984-
85. He contends that the Defendant was inducted as a tenant in 2006 on the ground floor of the property at a monthly rent of ₹2,500/- and later encroached upon the first floor without permission. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant ceased paying rent in 2010, leading to a protracted legal battle involving eviction proceedings, notices, and appeals before Digitally signed various forums. ANURADHA by ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:07:20 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 2/47
3. The Defendants, on the other hand, dispute the Plaintiff's ownership and the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship. They assert that the property has been in their independent possession since before 1987 and challenge the validity of the Plaintiff's documents, arguing that they are unregistered, insufficiently stamped, and fabricated. They further contend that the entire colony is unauthorized, and no valid title documents can exist for properties in the area. The Defendants claim that the Plaintiff's suit is a fraudulent attempt to usurp their property, which they maintain was lawfully constructed and occupied by their family.
4. This case, therefore, raises significant questions about property rights in unauthorized colonies, the validity of title documents in such areas, and the legal implications of oral tenancy agreements. It also underscores the challenges faced by courts in adjudicating disputes where allegations of fraud, conflicting property numbers, and unauthorized constructions create a complex factual matrix. The resolution of this case will hinge on the credibility of the parties' evidence and the application of legal principles governing property ownership, tenancy, and the rights of individuals in unauthorized colonies.
The Proceedings: A Chronology
5. The legal proceedings in the case commenced with the fresh suit being received on 29.04.2017, assigned for checking and registration. Summons were issued to the defendants for settlement of issues. On 31.05.2017, Defendant No. 1 appeared in person and sought time to file a written statement. Defendant No. 2 remained unserved, prompting fresh Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL CS SCJ 473/17 JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:07:47 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 3/47summons. Subsequently, on 21.07.2017, Defendant No. 2 appeared in person, and Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement.
6. On 22.08.2017, the pleadings were declared complete, and parties were scheduled for examination under Order 10 CPC. On 15.12.2017, the plaintiff moved an application for replication, which was allowed. An interim order was passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, restraining the defendants from creating third-party interests in the suit property. The matter was then listed for framing of issues on 08.02.2018, where replication was filed. On 16.07.2018, with no steps taken by Defendant No. 2, his defense was struck off.
7. On 23.11.2022, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of evidence, and issues were framed for trial. Evidence by the plaintiff commenced under the supervision of a Local Commissioner from 14.02.2024 onward, with cross-examination completed as per the Local Commissioner's report. On 27.03.2024, the court appointed the same Local Commissioner for the defendants' evidence. Defendant No. 1 filed his affidavit of evidence, and cross-examination concluded on 29.04.2024, as recorded in the Local Commissioner's report. The case then moved toward final arguments.
8. This Court has duly considered the final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties. The Court has meticulously examined the entire record, giving careful attention to the pleadings, the evidence presented, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Each aspect of the case has been analysed in light of the relevant facts and law, ensuring that all material brought before the Court has been fully reviewed and assessed in reaching a fair and just decision.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 CS SCJ 473/17 17:07:57 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 4/47
The Plaint
9. The plaintiff, being the lawful owner of property bearing No. J-1, 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, admeasuring 100 sq. yards, filed the present suit for recovery of possession, rent, damages/mesne profits, and permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit property, constructed by the plaintiff on a portion of his land, originally measured 100 sq. yards. However, only 50 sq. yards were developed, consisting of two rooms on the ground floor and a toilet and bathroom on the first floor.
10.The plaintiff, relying on ownership documents such as a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt, states that he purchased the property from one Shri Satbir Singh. Since 1985, the plaintiff constructed the premises for rental purposes, intending to further develop the remaining land when financial resources allowed.
11.The suit property was initially let to defendant No. 2, Sh. Bhoop Singh Yadav, in November 2005 at a monthly rent of ₹1,700/-. Defendant No. 1, who was a close friend and hailed from the same village as the plaintiff, was later inducted as a tenant on the ground floor in February 2006 at an increased monthly rent of ₹2,500/-. However, the oral tenancy agreement was based on mutual trat 4.00 PM.ust, with no written agreement executed.
12.Issues began to arise when defendant No. 1 reportedly created disturbances, leading defendant No. 2 to vacate the premises in June Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL CS SCJ 473/17 JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:08:06 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 5/472006. Subsequently, defendant No. 1, without obtaining the plaintiff's permission, occupied the first floor and proposed a rental increase of ₹500/, which was never honored. Defendant No. 1 also made unauthorized additions to the first floor, claiming reimbursement of ₹10,000/-, which the plaintiff refused.
13.Despite continued occupation, defendant No. 1 stopped paying rent altogether from September 2010. Multiple attempts were made by the plaintiff to recover the arrears. Legal notices were issued, including one dated February 19, 2011, under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, demanding payment of outstanding rent. When no response was received, the plaintiff initiated eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, the eviction petition was dismissed on March 13, 2014, due to technical grounds related to the classification of Sangam Vihar as a rural area not covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
14.Subsequently, the plaintiff pursued remedies in the District and Sessions Court, and later in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which granted the plaintiff the liberty to seek relief through civil proceedings. Following this, the plaintiff served legal notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in October and December 2016, terminating the tenancy and demanding peaceful possession. Despite these notices, defendant No. 1 failed to vacate the premises or clear the arrears.
15.The plaintiff further alleges that defendant No. 1 has illegally secured an electricity connection using forged documents and has engaged in threatening and intimidating behavior, including assaulting the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by
ANURADHA ANURADHA
JINDAL
JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10
CS SCJ 473/17 17:08:13 +0530
SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 6/47Complaints were lodged with the police in December 2010 and September 2012. However, financial constraints prevented the plaintiff from taking further legal action at the time.
16.The plaintiff, residing in a rented one-room accommodation, asserts that he has no alternative housing. He has been compelled to pursue this suit to recover possession of his property, arrears of rent amounting to ₹2,00,000/- for the period between September 2010 and April 2017, and mesne profits of ₹7,000/- per month for unauthorized occupation. The plaintiff seeks the court's intervention to grant possession, restrain the defendants from transferring or alienating the suit property, and award appropriate damages and costs incurred in the litigation.
17.This suit is based on the continuous cause of action, arising from the non- payment of rent, illegal occupation, and refusal to vacate the premises despite termination of tenancy. The plaintiff prays for relief in accordance with the prayers stated in the plaint.
The Written Statement
18.The Defendant No. 1 respectfully submits that the Plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute this suit. The Plaintiff has no independent or personal right, title, or interest in the property owned and possessed by the Defendant. The premises under the Defendant's ownership are separate and distinct, bearing Nos. 436 (old) and 433 (new), located in J-1, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-62, while the Plaintiff occupies a separate property bearing No. 435-A in the same locality. There exists no connection between the Plaintiff's alleged property and the Defendant's Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL CS SCJ 473/17 JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:09:05 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 7/47premises. The Defendant asserts that this suit is a mala fide attempt by the Plaintiff to fraudulently seize the Defendant's property, which is entirely self-owned and independent.
19.The Defendant highlights that the colony of Sangam Vihar, where both the Plaintiff's and Defendant's properties are located, is unauthorized and illegal as per government records. The Plaintiff is exploiting this fact to bring baseless claims against the Defendant. It is categorically denied that there ever existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant. The Defendant has never rented the premises from the Plaintiff, nor has he paid rent at any point in time. This absence of a tenancy relationship renders the suit untenable in law. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to correctly value the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. The market value of the Defendant's property exceeds ₹25 lakhs, requiring the Plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees. Consequently, this Court lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
20.The Plaintiff's claims are barred under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as they are false, vexatious, and scandalous. The Plaintiff's assertion that the Defendant was inducted as a tenant in February 2006 is entirely baseless, as the Defendant has been in lawful possession of his property since before 1987. The Defendant's premises are separate and distinct, with clear boundary walls demarcating them from the Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands, suppressing material facts and presenting a fabricated narrative. His dishonest attempt to usurp the Defendant's Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:09:14 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 8/47property warrants dismissal of the suit and prosecution under Section 340 of the CrPC. Moreover, the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, as Defendant No. 2 has no connection with the premises under dispute. His inclusion in the suit appears to be a strategic ploy by the Plaintiff. Additionally, the Plaintiff's claims are barred under Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, as they rely on unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents.
21.On merits, the Defendant denies the Plaintiff's claim of ownership over the disputed property. The Defendant's premises are separate and distinct, and there is no overlap with the Plaintiff's alleged property. The Plaintiff's assertion that he purchased property No. 435-A through a General Power of Attorney and other documents lacks credibility and legal admissibility. The Defendant categorically denies that the Plaintiff constructed any part of the Defendant's property. The Defendant independently constructed his premises, including a double-storied structure, using his personal funds. The Plaintiff's allegations of tenancy, rent payments, or agreements are entirely false. The Defendant has always occupied his property in his own right, without any obligations to the Plaintiff.
22.The Defendant further denies all allegations regarding legal notices, termination of tenancy, or any demands made by the Plaintiff. No such notices were ever received, nor do they pertain to the Defendant's premises. The Plaintiff's claims regarding electricity connections, police complaints, or alleged threats by the Defendant are equally baseless and unsubstantiated. The Plaintiff has relied on fabricated documents and Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:09:28 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 9/47false allegations to bring this suit, and no cause of action has arisen in his favor.
23.The Defendant respectfully prays that this Court dismiss the suit filed by the Plaintiff with costs, as it is false, frivolous, and devoid of merit. The Defendant also seeks any other relief that this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Replication to the Written Statement of the Defendant
24.The plaintiff respectfully submits this replication in response to the written statement filed by Defendant No. 1, addressing the misstatements, misrepresentations, and allegations presented therein. The plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 share a history of friendship, having come from the same village, Atyapur (Atepur). Trusting this relationship, the plaintiff agreed to rent his property to Defendant No. 1. Unfortunately, this trust was betrayed, as the defendant has engaged in prolonged litigation since September 2010 to avoid paying rent and to illegally hold possession of the plaintiff's premises.
25.The property in question was rented to Defendant No. 1 with the understanding that he would occupy the ground floor, which consisted of two rooms, a kitchen, and a combined toilet and bathroom. The monthly rent was agreed upon as ₹2,500/-. This arrangement was made after the plaintiff relocated another tenant, Defendant No. 2, to the first floor. Defendant No. 2, also a trusted friend, had been residing on the ground floor since November 2005 but was shifted to accommodate Defendant No. 1's family. What initially appeared as an act of goodwill on the plaintiff's part later revealed itself to be a calculated move by Defendant Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL CS SCJ 473/17 JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:09:48 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 10/47No. 1 to displace Defendant No. 2 and unlawfully claim possession of the property.
26.The conduct of Defendant No. 1 forced Defendant No. 2 to vacate the premises silently after enduring significant hardship. Subsequently, Defendant No. 1 failed to honor his promise to pay increased rent, and from September 2010, he stopped paying rent altogether. It is noteworthy that Defendant No. 1, during the three years of litigation before the Hon'ble Additional Rent Controller, never asserted ownership of the property. Instead, he focused solely on procedural arguments, particularly concerning the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act to Sangam Vihar, thereby prolonging the litigation and strengthening his illegal hold over the property.
27.The plaintiff categorically denies the claims made by Defendant No. 1 regarding ownership of the property. The plaintiff holds valid documents, including a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and other notarized documents, evidencing his rightful ownership. The plaintiff dismisses the defendant's assertion that the property bears different numbers, such as 436 or 433. These claims are baseless and intended to confuse the matter before this Court. The property has always been identified as 435-A, and the plaintiff remains its lawful owner.
28.The unauthorized status of the colony does not confer any rights upon Defendant No. 1 to illegally occupy the premises. The plaintiff purchased the property for valuable consideration and constructed a portion of it with the intention of generating rental income. Half of the property remains undeveloped due to financial constraints. The defendant's claim Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:09:57 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 11/47that the colony's unauthorized status affects the plaintiff's ownership is untenable and irrelevant to the current proceedings.
29.The plaintiff refutes the allegation that the tenancy relationship never existed. Defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in February 2006 and paid rent until August 2010. The legal notices sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, including those dated 19th February 2011, 16th October 2016, and 9th December 2016, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, were duly served. These notices clearly terminated the tenancy and demanded possession, which the defendant ignored.
30.It is evident that Defendant No. 1 is engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. His claims regarding the valuation of the property, the court's jurisdiction, and the status of the plaintiff's ownership are mere distractions. The plaintiff has already undertaken to make good any deficiency in court fees if required by this Court. Furthermore, the claim that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands is unfounded. The plaintiff has pursued his legal remedies diligently, seeking only to recover his property and rightful dues.
31.The plaintiff reiterates that Defendant No. 2 is a necessary party to this suit. The inclusion of Defendant No. 2 is not motivated by any malice but is essential for the proper adjudication of the matter. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's documents are fabricated is baseless. The plaintiff's ownership is supported by all relevant documents submitted to Digitally signed by this Court. ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:10:05 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 12/4732.In light of the above, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court grant the reliefs sought in the plaint. These include a decree for possession of the property, recovery of arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits, and a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from creating third- party interests in the property. The plaintiff remains committed to complying with the directions of this Court and seeks justice in this matter.
Determination of Issues
33.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were identified:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession qua the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from selling or creating third party interest in the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (b)? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of arrears of rent from September 2010 to April 2017 for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, as prayed for in prayer clause (c)? OPP.
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
7000/- per month from date of filing till handing over of physical possession, as prayed for in prayer clause (c)? OPP.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10
17:10:12 +0530
CS SCJ 473/17
SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 13/475. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for in prayer clause (d)? OPP.
6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD1.
7. Whether plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD1.
8. Whether present suit is barred by Section 33/35 of Indian Stamp Act and provision of Indian Registration Act? OPD1.
9. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence PW-1/ Plaintiff, Sh. Devender Singh Yadav
34.PW-1 tendered his evidence through an affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signatures. He relied on several documents to support his claim, including a General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/1), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW1/2), Affidavit (Ex. PW1/3), and a Receipt (Ex. PW1/4), all dated September 6, 1984, along with other supporting materials such as his site plan (Ex. PW1/5), identification documents (Ex. PW1/10-Ex.
PW1/15) and complaints (Mark A - Mark C)
Digitally signed
by ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10
17:10:21 +0530
CS SCJ 473/17
SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 14/47Evidence Affidavit of PW-1
35.PW-1 affirms that he is the plaintiff in the case and is fully aware of the facts, making him competent to depose. The plaintiff claims ownership of property located at J-1, 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi- 62, measuring 100 square yards. This property was purchased in 1984-85 from Satbir Singh through documents like a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt.
36.On the purchased land, only 50 square yards were constructed, comprising two rooms, a kitchen, and bathroom facilities, with the intent to rent out the premises and construct further later. The property was renumbered by the J-1 Block Welfare Association in 2004-05, and a site plan has been submitted as evidence. Defendant No. 1, Munni Lal, was inducted as a tenant on the ground floor of the property in February 2006 at a monthly rent of ₹2,500. Previously, Defendant No. 2 occupied the ground floor at ₹1,700/month and was relocated to the first floor for Munni Lal's family. No written rental agreements were executed as both defendants were close acquaintances from the plaintiff's native village, Atepur. Defendant No. 1 allegedly stopped paying rent in September 2010 and unlawfully occupied the first floor without permission, promising increased rent, which was never paid.
37.The plaintiff served a legal notice on Defendant No. 1 in February 2011 under the Delhi Rent Control Act, demanding overdue rent and possession. However, Defendant No. 1 neither paid nor vacated the premises. Subsequent eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:10:28 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 15/47Act were dismissed on technical grounds as the colony was deemed rural, outside the Act's jurisdiction. Appeals to the District & Sessions Court and the High Court of Delhi followed, with the latter granting liberty to seek remedies in an appropriate forum. Additional legal notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act were sent in October and December 2016.
38.Defendant No. 1 allegedly secured an illegal electricity connection using forged documents and has been intimidating the plaintiff with threats and assaults, supported by police complaints from 2010 and 2012. The defendant's actions led to the plaintiff's financial hardship and mental anguish, forcing him to return to his village. The plaintiff asserts that Defendant No. 1 (and his legal heirs) are unauthorized occupants of the property and liable to pay damages/mesne profits at ₹7,000/month or as decided by the court. He seeks recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages, and legal costs, stating that the cause of action is ongoing until peaceful possession is restored.
Cross-examination of PW-1
39.During his testimony, PW-1 described the history of the property in question. He asserted that it was purchased from Mr. Satvir Singh through a legally executed Power of Attorney and related documents. PW-1 emphasized that the property, situated in Sangam Vihar Colony, was demarcated and numbered by Satvir Singh himself, who sold it to him as a rightful owner. He denied the suggestion that Satvir Singh lacked ownership over the property or that the transaction was legally Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:10:35 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 16/47flawed. When questioned about the property's origins and ownership, PW-1 admitted that he did not have direct documents proving Satvir Singh's ownership but relied on his statements and the Khasra number provided at the time of purchase.
40.PW-1 denied allegations that the documents supporting his claim--Ex. PW1/1 through Ex. PW1/4--were fabricated or without legal value. He reiterated that the property was constructed by him and rented to Defendant No. 1, Munni Lal, in February 2006, at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. Despite the absence of a written rent agreement or receipts, PW-1 maintained that Munni Lal, being from the same village, had initially been a tenant. He categorically denied any suggestion that Munni Lal was an independent owner or legal occupier of the property.
41.Addressing questions about the property's legality, PW-1 acknowledged that the J Block, Sangam Vihar Colony, lacked sewer and water lines and that property tax was not paid for the property. However, he refuted claims that the colony and its properties were entirely illegal or unauthorized. He maintained his ownership rights over the property and denied allegations that the Defendant No. 1 had been in possession since 1998 or that the sale or purchase of land in the colony was prohibited. He also refuted claims that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between him and Defendant No. 1, asserting that Munni Lal had been a tenant who had failed to pay rent since September 2010.
42.PW-1 addressed specific allegations made during cross-examination, denying that he had no right to claim possession, rent, or damages from Defendant No. 1. He stated that he had served legal notices to the Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 CS SCJ 473/17 17:10:42 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 17/47Defendant, though he could not confirm whether the Defendant had identity documents such as a ration card linked to the property. He refuted claims that he had been threatened by the Defendant or that he was deposing falsely.
43.In response to questions about the market value of the property, PW-1 expressed ignorance of its value, either at the time of filing the suit or at present. He denied that the value was Rs. 40 lakhs at the time of filing or Rs. 2 crore presently, nor did he accept claims that the land in J Block, Sangam Vihar, was entirely government land. Throughout his testimony, PW-1 firmly maintained his ownership of the property, the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with Defendant No. 1, and his right to claim possession, arrears of rent, and damages.
Defendant's Evidence DW-1/ Son of the Defendant, Sh. Satpal Singh
44.DW-1 stated that he is currently employed in a private job and tendered his evidence through an affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/A, bearing his signature. He confirmed the affidavit to be true and correct. DW-1 also relied on several documents, including copies of his driving license (Ex. DW1/1), voter ID cards (Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/8, Mark B and Mark C), a vehicle registration certificate (Ex. DW1/3), an RWA welfare association document dated 27.12.2004 (Ex. DW1/4), a bank passbook issued by the Central Bank of India (Ex. DW1/5), Ration Card (Ex. DW1/5A, Mark A) and Electricity Bills (Ex. DW1/6 and Ex. DW1/7). He faced objections Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:10:51 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 18/47from the plaintiff's counsel regarding the mode of proof for certain documents.
Evidence Affidavit of DW-1
45.DW-1, the legal heir of the deceased Defendant No. 1 (Munni Lal), submits his affidavit asserting that the property in question, located at House No. 433 (New)/436 (Old), J-1, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, has been in the lawful and independent possession of his family since before 1987. He denies all claims made by the Plaintiff regarding ownership, tenancy, and any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Satpal Singh supports his claims with various documents, including driving licenses, voter IDs, electricity bills, bank passbooks, and ration cards, which he contends prove his family's long-standing possession and occupation of the property.
46.The Defendant disputes the Plaintiff's allegations, stating that the Plaintiff's claims are fraudulent and maliciously designed to grab the property. He asserts that the Plaintiff's documents, including the General Power of Attorney and related sale documents, are fabricated, insufficiently stamped, and unregistered, lacking any legal validity. Further, he argues that the property in Sangam Vihar is part of an unauthorized colony where no legal title documents can exist, rendering the Plaintiff's claims baseless.
47.DW-1 emphasizes that no tenancy agreement or rent payment was ever made by his deceased father to the Plaintiff. He denies the receipt of any Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:10:58 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 19/47legal notices purportedly served by the Plaintiff and challenges the valuation of the suit property, asserting it exceeds ₹25,00,000/-. He also highlights discrepancies in the Plaintiff's claims, such as the property numbers and boundaries, stating that the property of the deceased Defendant and that of the Plaintiff are separate and divided by a boundary wall.
48.The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands, suppressing material facts and presenting fabricated claims. He also contends that the Plaintiff's suit suffers from misjoinder of parties, as Defendant No. 2 has no connection to the suit property and was included with ulterior motives.
Cross-examination of DW-1
49.In his cross-examination, DW-1 stated that his father, Munni Lal, originally hailed from the village Atepur in Uttar Pradesh and worked as a tailor after moving to Delhi. His family, including two sisters and one brother, were all born in Delhi, and he himself studied up to the 12th standard in a senior secondary school in Devli. He mentioned that his maternal uncle (mama) also lived in Sangam Vihar but has since passed away. He described the adjoining properties to the suit property, noting that the house to the left of the suit property was rented out, but he was not aware of the owner's identity.
50.DW-1 acknowledged that the suit property had undergone construction in phases, starting before his birth. Initially, one room was constructed, Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:11:06 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 20/47followed by three additional rooms in subsequent phases. He stated that the suit property was renumbered from 436 to 433 when he was around 6-8 years old. He admitted to possessing another property, numbered 481/15 in J1 Block, Sangam Vihar, which he acquired in 2019 through a monetary exchange and by executing documents. He denied the suggestion that property transactions in Sangam Vihar commonly occur through documents like GPA, agreements to sell, affidavits, and receipts.
51.Regarding his father's possession of the suit property, DW-1 claimed he was unaware of the documents used to obtain the electricity connection. He refuted allegations that his father had entered the property as a tenant and later claimed ownership. He asserted that his family had always stayed independently and never resided with his maternal uncle. DW-1 denied any wrongdoing in the acquisition or possession of the suit property and maintained that his family had lawfully occupied it since before his birth.
52.Throughout his testimony, DW-1 denied several suggestions put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, including claims that he was withholding information about the neighboring properties and that his father had unlawfully grabbed the suit property. He concluded by rejecting the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:11:14 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 21/47
Final Arguments Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff
53.Learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff has demonstrated lawful ownership of the property at J-1, 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. This ownership is substantiated by documents including a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt executed by Satbir Singh in favor of the Plaintiff in 1984. The Plaintiff has corroborated his claim through a site plan and other documents proving his residence and possession of the property.
54.The Plaintiff has established that the Defendant, Sh. Munni Lal, was inducted as a tenant in the ground floor of the property in February 2006 at a monthly rent of ₹2,500/-. This is further supported by the Plaintiff's uncontroverted testimony and complaints made against the Defendant. Despite no written agreement being executed, the absence of such an agreement does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, especially when corroborated by oral testimony and conduct. The Defendant's cessation of rent payments in September 2010 further reinforces the Plaintiff's grievance.
55.The Defendant's subsequent occupation of the first floor without permission and refusal to vacate the property, despite repeated legal notices, amounts to unauthorized possession. The Defendant's contention of being an independent owner is baseless, as no credible title documents have been produced to support this claim. The Defendant's reliance on Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:11:20 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 22/47voter IDs, electricity bills, and other documents only establishes residence but does not confer ownership.
56.The Plaintiff, a senior citizen, has faced immense financial and emotional hardship due to the Defendant's illegal occupation. Despite serving legal notices, filing eviction proceedings, and pursuing remedies through multiple forums, the Plaintiff has been denied his rightful possession. The Defendant's deliberate attempts to delay the litigation and create confusion regarding property numbers further demonstrate malafide intent. Finally, the Plaintiff prays for recovery of possession of the suit property; Payment of rent arrears from September 2010 to date; Damages/mesne profits at the rate of ₹7,000/- per month for the Defendant's unauthorized use and occupation and permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from creating third-party rights. In support of his case, the following case laws were relied upon:-
o Bimla Chopra and Anr. Vs. Kuldeep 2023 SCC Online Del 2669 in RFA 240/2015 decided on 02.05.2023;
o Arbinder Singh Kohli & Anr. Vs. Gobind Kaur Kohli 2018 SCC Online 9663: AIR 2019 (NOC 257) 85: (2018) 171 DRJ 249 in RFA 892/2016 & CM no. 42294/2016 & 37579/2017 decided on 04.07.2018;
o Vijay Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 1585 in Civil Appeal no. 4910 of 2023 decided on 29.11.2023.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:11:26 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 23/47
Submissions on behalf of the Defendant
57.Learned Counsel for the defendant argued that the Plaintiff's claim of ownership is not legally tenable. The documents relied upon by the Plaintiff, including the General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell, are insufficiently stamped, unregistered, and do not meet the requirements under the Transfer of Property Act and Indian Registration Act. The Plaintiff has failed to provide a chain of title or evidence of how Satbir Singh acquired ownership, making his claim speculative and unsubstantiated.
58.The Defendant, Munni Lal, was in independent possession of the property since prior to 1987. Documents such as electricity bills, voter IDs, and RWA welfare association records corroborate the Defendant's continuous possession of the property. The Defendant has demonstrated that the property was constructed in phases by his father, Sh. Munni Lal, and not by the Plaintiff. This long-standing possession is indicative of ownership, as recognized in cases of adverse possession and in the absence of competing valid title.
59.The Plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship. There is no written tenancy agreement, no rent receipts, and no credible evidence of rent payments. The Plaintiff's claim that rent was paid orally is unsubstantiated. The Plaintiff's attempt to introduce the notion of tenancy is a malafide strategy to oust the rightful occupants of the property. The Plaintiff cannot rely on unregistered and invalid documents to assert ownership. The Defendant's family has been in Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.12.10 CS SCJ 473/17 17:12:50 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 24/47uninterrupted possession of the property for decades, and their occupation cannot be disturbed without credible evidence of ownership.
60.The Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. His inconsistent claims regarding property numbers and fabricated documents suggest malafide intentions to usurp the property occupied by the Defendant's family. The Plaintiff's reliance on vague and unverified documents fails to meet the burden of proof required to establish ownership. Finally, the Defendant prays for dismissal of the Plaintiff's suit as baseless and fraudulent; Declaration that the Defendant's family is the rightful occupant of the property and costs of litigation to be awarded to the Defendant. In support of his case, the following case laws were relied upon:-
o Sri Channegowda & Anr. Vs. Sri N. S. Vishwanath & Ors. In second appeal no. 193 of 2011 (DEC) decided on 08.12.2023; o Shakeel Ahmad Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain in Civil appeal no. 1598 of 2023 decided on 01.11.2023.
Analysis and Findings Issue No. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession qua the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP
61.The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The prayer clause (a) of the plaint is reproduced as under: Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:11:59 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 25/47
"(a) A decree of possession of the suit premises in respect of the property bearing No.J-1st , 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062 consisting of two rooms and one toilet and bath room with ground and first floor with fittings and fixtures installed therein, more particularly shown in RED in the site plan attached herewith."
62.To determine the plaintiff's entitlement to a decree of possession, this court must analyze the legal and factual matrix presented by both parties. The issue revolves around the ownership, possession, and the status of the defendant's occupancy of the suit property. The case laws relied upon by the parties talks about the settled proposition of law and is peculiar to the facts of that particular case, however, in the factual matrix of the present case, it is to be seen as to whether the plaintiff has been able to establish a better title over the suit property as against the defendant.
63.The plaintiff asserts ownership of the suit property located at J-1, 435-A, Gali No. 15, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, admeasuring 100 sq. yards. This claim is substantiated by unregistered documents, namely, the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt executed in the plaintiff's favor by one Satbir Singh in 1984-1985. The plaintiff claims to have constructed a portion of the property on 50 sq. yards and subsequently rented it out to Defendant No. 1 in February 2006 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. The plaintiff alleges that Defendant No. 1 initially occupied the ground floor as a tenant but later extended his occupation to the first floor without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff contends that the defendant stopped paying rent from September 2010, rendering his possession unauthorized and illegal.
Digitally signed by ANURADHAANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:12:07 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 26/47
64.The plaintiff issued notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy and demanding possession. However, Defendant No. 1 did not vacate the property or comply with the notice. Documents such as the GPA (Ex. PW1/1), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW1/2), and Affidavit (Ex. PW1/3) have been relied upon to establish ownership and possession. Legal notices served upon Defendant No. 1 further substantiate the plaintiff's claim of terminating the tenancy.
65.The defendant contends that the plaintiff has no title or ownership over the suit property and that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are unregistered, insufficiently stamped, and inadmissible under the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of ownership is fabricated, as the suit property and surrounding properties are situated in an unauthorized colony, where no valid ownership documents can exist.
66.The defendant claims to be in lawful and independent possession of the property since prior to 1987, asserting that no landlord-tenant relationship ever existed between the parties. The defendant argues that the property is numbered 436 (old) / 433 (new) and not 435-A, thereby asserting that the plaintiff's claim pertains to a different property. The defendant has relied on documents such as electricity bills, voter IDs, and ration cards to establish continuous possession and occupation of the suit property by his family.
67.While the plaintiff's documents (GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt) are unregistered and insufficiently stamped, they are admissible to prove possession and intention to own property, especially in the Digitally signed ANURADHA by ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 CS SCJ 473/17 17:12:14 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 27/47context of properties situated in unauthorized colonies. The courts have recognized such documents as valid evidence of possession in cases involving unauthorized colonies (Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656).
68.The defendant's claim of possession since 1987 is not substantiated by any cogent evidence. The defendant has failed to produce ownership documents or any credible explanation of how his occupation of the property began. The defendant's reliance on electricity bills and voter ID cards is insufficient to establish ownership or negate the plaintiff's claim, as these documents only indicate occupancy, not title.
69.The plaintiff has established his claim of ownership through documentary evidence and oral testimony. While the documents may not confer absolute title, they support the plaintiff's possession and intention to own the property. The defendant's unauthorized extension of possession from the ground floor to the first floor and the cessation of rent payments further supports the plaintiff's case of illegal occupation.
70.The plaintiff has duly served legal notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy. The defendant's failure to vacate the property despite the notices renders his possession illegal.
71.The plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish his entitlement to possession of the suit property. The defendant's defenses are unsupported by credible evidence and fail to refute the plaintiff's claims convincingly. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a Digitally signed ANURADHA by ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:12:20 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 28/47decree of possession for the suit property as prayed for in prayer clause
(a).
Issue No. 2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling or creating third-party interest in the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (b)? OPP
72.The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff. The prayer clause (b) of the plaint is reproduced as under:-
"(b) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their associates, family members, authorized representatives and agents etc. from transferring, alienating and creating any third party interest premises aforesaid;"
73.This issue requires the court to examine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient grounds to restrain the defendants from alienating or creating third-party interests in the suit property during the pendency of the suit or thereafter. The grant of a permanent injunction is contingent upon the plaintiff's ability to establish a proprietary interest and the likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
74.The plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling or creating third-party interests in the suit property. This claim is rooted in the plaintiff's assertion of ownership and the risk of irreparable harm that would occur if the defendants were allowed to alienate the property. The plaintiff relies on documents such as Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:13:16 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 29/47
the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Receipt to establish his ownership and possession. While these documents may not confer absolute title under the Transfer of Property Act, they are admissible for proving possession and intention of ownership. The plaintiff emphasizes that the defendants are unauthorized occupants who have stopped paying rent and may create third-party rights to complicate the recovery of possession.
75.The defendants, on the other hand, deny the plaintiff's ownership and claim that they have been in possession of the property since before 1987. They argue that the documents presented by the plaintiff are unregistered and insufficiently stamped, making them legally invalid. Furthermore, they contend that the property is situated in an unauthorized colony, where ownership rights are uncertain, and no valid sale or purchase can occur. The defendants assert that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to seek injunctive relief.
76.It is well-settled law that possession, even in the absence of absolute ownership, can be protected through equitable relief. The plaintiff has presented credible evidence of possession and the risk of alienation by the defendants. The defendants, in contrast, have failed to produce any ownership documents or valid evidence to substantiate their claims. Their reliance on the unauthorized status of the colony does not absolve them of the obligation to prove lawful possession or ownership.
77.The apprehension of the plaintiff is reasonable, given that the defendants have made no categorical denials of their ability to transfer the property or encumber it. The alienation of the property would irreparably harm Digitally the signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 CS SCJ 473/17 17:13:24 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 30/47
plaintiff by complicating legal proceedings and diminishing his chances of recovering possession. Furthermore, the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff, as granting the injunction prevents future legal disputes without causing undue hardship to the defendants.
78.The principles governing the grant of a permanent injunction require the establishment of a prima facie case, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has satisfied all three conditions. The court recognizes that the unauthorized status of the colony does not preclude the plaintiff's right to protect his possession and prevent the creation of third-party rights. Established precedents affirm that a person in possession can seek equitable relief to restrain others from interfering with their rights unless dispossession is effected through lawful means.
79.The unauthorized status of the colony does not, in itself, preclude the plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief. The objective of an injunction is to maintain the status quo and prevent parties from creating a fait accompli that would render ongoing litigation moot. Allowing the defendants to sell or transfer the property could result in the introduction of new parties into the dispute, further delaying justice and complicating the plaintiff's recovery of possession.
80.Moreover, the defendants have not provided any evidence to suggest that they are the lawful owners or have the authority to alienate the property. Their reliance on general denials and challenges to the plaintiff's documents falls short of the evidentiary burden required to contest a claim for injunction. The balance of equities also favors the plaintiff, as Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:13:31 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 31/47the injunction merely seeks to preserve the current state of affairs until the court adjudicates ownership and possession rights conclusively.
81.Therefore, this court finds that the plaintiff has made a strong case for the grant of a permanent injunction. The defendants are restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property until the final adjudication of the case. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of arrears of rent from September 2010 to April 2017 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as prayed for in prayer clause (c)? OPP.
82.The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The prayer clause (c ) of the plaint is reproduced as under:-
"(c) A decree for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from September 2010 to April, 2017 amounting to Rs 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only);"
83.The plaintiff claims arrears of rent from September 2010 to April 2017, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, on the basis that the defendant was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. The plaintiff contends that the defendant stopped paying rent from September 2010 onwards, despite continued occupation of the premises.
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10
17:13:38
+0530
CS SCJ 473/17
SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 32/4784.The defendant, on the other hand, denies the existence of any landlord- tenant relationship and asserts that the property has been in his independent and lawful possession since before 1987. He claims no rent was ever paid or demanded and challenges the plaintiff's claim of arrears as baseless and unsupported by evidence.
85.The determination of this issue hinges on the following points:
o Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship: To establish entitlement to arrears of rent, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a landlord- tenant relationship. The plaintiff has stated that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in February 2006 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. While there is no written agreement, the plaintiff has explained that the absence of formal documentation arose from a close relationship of trust between the parties, as they hailed from the same village. The plaintiff has also submitted evidence of a legal notice dated 19.02.2011 demanding arrears of rent, which was not replied to by the defendant. Conversely, the defendant's denial of the tenancy appears inconsistent. While the defendant denies being a tenant, he has not furnished any evidence to substantiate his claim of independent ownership or lawful possession. The defendant's reliance on documents such as voter ID cards and ration cards to establish possession does not address the plaintiff's allegations of tenancy and arrears.
o Evidence of Non-Payment of Rent: The plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent is further corroborated by his legal notices demanding rent and Digitally signed ANURADHA by ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:13:45 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 33/47termination of tenancy. These notices, coupled with the defendant's failure to respond, support the plaintiff's contention that the defendant stopped paying rent from September 2010.
o Burden of Proof: While the initial burden of proving the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship rests with the plaintiff, once prima facie evidence of tenancy is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to refute the claim or provide evidence of lawful possession. In this case, the plaintiff has discharged his burden through oral and circumstantial evidence, including notices. The defendant has failed to discharge his burden of proving lawful possession independent of tenancy.
o Quantum of Arrears: The plaintiff's claim of arrears from September 2010 to April 2017, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, is based on a rent of Rs. 2,500/- per month for a period of 80 months. This calculation is reasonable and consistent with the alleged monthly rent. The defendant has not contested the quantum of arrears in specific terms but has merely denied the existence of a tenancy.
86.In light of the evidence and circumstances, the plaintiff has successfully established the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the non- payment of rent from September 2010 onwards. The defendant's denial lacks corroborative evidence and appears to be a self-serving assertion aimed at evading liability. This court, therefore, finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.
Digitally signed 2,00,000/-, as prayed for in prayer clause (c). ANURADHA by ANURADHA JINDAL Date: JINDAL 2024.12.10 17:13:52 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17
SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 34/47Issue No. 4:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till handing over of physical possession, as prayed for in prayer clause (c)? OPP.
87.The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
88.The plaintiff claims damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit until the defendant vacates and hands over possession of the suit property. The claim is premised on the allegation that the defendant has remained in unauthorized possession of the suit property since the termination of the tenancy, and that the monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- ceased to apply following the termination of the landlord-tenant relationship. The plaintiff asserts that Rs. 7,000/- per month reflects the prevailing market rent for comparable properties in the area.
89.The defendant denies any liability for damages or mesne profits, disputing the plaintiff's ownership of the property and denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The defendant further argues that he has been in lawful possession of the property in his own independent right since before 1987.
90.Mesne profits, as defined under Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are profits that a person in wrongful possession of Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:13:59 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 35/47property might have received with ordinary diligence, together with interest on such profits. To claim mesne profits, the plaintiff must establish:
o Ownership or a superior title over the suit property. o Unauthorized or wrongful possession of the property by the defendant. o The quantum of mesne profits claimed reflects the fair rental value of the property.
91.In this case, the plaintiff has established possession of the property through documents, including the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and other ancillary documents. The termination of tenancy through a legal notice dated 19.02.2011, followed by another notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 09.12.2016, establishes that the defendant's possession of the property became unauthorized after the termination of tenancy.
92.The plaintiff claims mesne profits at Rs. 7,000/- per month, citing this amount as the prevailing market rent for similar properties in the area. While no independent valuation report or specific market survey has been produced, the plaintiff's claim appears reasonable when compared to the monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- during the tenancy. The passage of time and inflation naturally lead to an increase in rental value, and the plaintiff has stated that Rs. 7,000/- per month reflects the market rate in Sangam Vihar for properties of similar size and construction.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDALANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.12.10 17:14:05 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 36/4793.The defendant has not produced any evidence to counter the plaintiff's estimation of the fair rental value. The absence of such evidence implies an implicit acknowledgment of the reasonableness of the claimed amount.
94.The plaintiff has successfully demonstrated that the defendant ceased paying rent from September 2010 and failed to vacate the premises despite the termination of tenancy. The defendant's continued occupation is, therefore, wrongful and unauthorized. The plaintiff has also shown efforts to resolve the matter, including filing eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act and subsequent legal notices. These steps demonstrate the plaintiff's bona fide attempt to regain possession and highlight the defendant's deliberate obstruction.
95.The defendant's denial of the plaintiff's ownership and the landlord- tenant relationship lacks credibility and supporting evidence. The defendant's possession of voter ID cards, ration cards, and other such documents does not confer ownership or negate the plaintiff's superior title. The defendant has also failed to substantiate his claim of independent possession since 1987 or provide any valid basis for resisting the claim for mesne profits.
96.The plaintiff has successfully established that the defendant's continued possession of the suit property is unauthorized and wrongful. The claim for mesne profits at Rs. 7,000/- per month is reasonable and reflective of the prevailing market rent. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit until the defendant vacates and hands over physical Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:14:12 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 37/47
possession of the property. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 5:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for in prayer clause (d)? OPP.
97.The plaintiff has sought interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits. The plaintiff's claim is based on the assertion that the defendant's unauthorized possession of the suit property and failure to pay rent or damages for an extended period caused financial loss, for which the plaintiff should be compensated with interest on the unpaid amounts.
98.The plaintiff has claimed arrears of rent from September 2010 to April 2017, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is undisputed that the defendant ceased paying rent from September 2010 despite continuing to occupy the suit premises. This non-payment, coupled with the defendant's refusal to vacate the property despite legal notices, demonstrates willful default. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the unpaid rent for the period it remained due.
99.The plaintiff has also claimed mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit until the defendant vacates and hands over possession of the property. Mesne profits, by their nature, are compensatory in nature and include the reasonable rental value of the property during the period of wrongful possession. Courts often award interest on mesne profits to ensure CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 38/47complete compensation for the plaintiff's loss due to the deprivation of property.
100. The plaintiff is entitled to interest on the arrears of rent and mesne profits to ensure just and equitable compensation for the financial loss suffered due to the defendant's unauthorized occupation of the suit property. While the claimed rate of 18% per annum is on the higher side, the plaintiff's entitlement to interest is well-founded in law. This court, thus, awards interest at the rate of 9%, per annum on the arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits, in the interest of justice.
Issue No. 6:
Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD1.
101. The Onus to prove this issue was upon Defendant No. 1. The defendant has challenged the plaintiff's locus standi to institute the present suit, asserting that the plaintiff has no legal right, title, or interest in the suit property and therefore cannot maintain the claims for possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, or injunction. The determination of this issue hinges on whether the plaintiff has sufficient legal standing to pursue the reliefs sought.
102. Locus standi refers to the legal capacity of a party to bring an action before the court. A party must demonstrate a direct interest or sufficient cause of action to justify their right to seek judicial intervention. In cases involving property disputes, locus standi is Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:14:20 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 39/47typically established through ownership, possession, or contractual rights over the property.
103. The plaintiff has claimed ownership of the suit property based on the execution of documents such as the General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/1), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW1/2), Affidavit (Ex. PW1/3), and Receipt of Payment (Ex. PW1/4) by one Satbir Singh in 1984-85. These documents, while not registered, have been relied upon by the plaintiff to assert ownership over the property. The plaintiff also relies on the oral rental arrangements with the defendant to substantiate his claims.
104. The defendant has argued that the plaintiff does not have valid title or ownership over the suit property, emphasizing the alleged illegality of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defendant contends that the entire colony, including the suit property, is unauthorized and that no legal transfer of ownership can occur within such an area. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that he has been in lawful possession of the property since before 1987, thereby challenging the plaintiff's claim of ownership.
105. Even if the plaintiff's title to the suit property is questioned, the plaintiff's claim of prior possession and the subsequent tenancy arrangement with the defendant establish a prima facie right to seek possession. In Indian law, the principle "possession is good title against all but the true owner" applies. Thus, the plaintiff's possession prior to the defendant's occupation strengthens his locus standi to file the suit.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.12.10 17:14:26 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17
SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 40/47106. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property in February 2006 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500. Although the tenancy was oral and lacked a formal written agreement, the absence of such documentation does not negate the landlord-tenant relationship. The defendant's failure to pay rent since September 2010 further supports the plaintiff's right to seek recovery of possession and arrears.
107. The defendant's contention that the colony is unauthorized does not invalidate the plaintiff's locus standi. Unauthorized colonies often operate under de facto arrangements of ownership and possession, recognized in practical terms by courts when adjudicating disputes. While the unauthorized status may raise issues concerning title, it does not extinguish the plaintiff's right to seek possession from a tenant or unauthorized occupant.
108. In determining locus standi, courts focus on whether the plaintiff has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The plaintiff's claims of ownership, prior possession, and tenancy arrangements with the defendant establish a sufficient cause of action, even if the title documents are challenged. The plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine grievance warranting adjudication by the court.
109. The plaintiff has established sufficient locus standi to file the present suit. The plaintiff's claims of ownership and prior possession, coupled with the alleged landlord-tenant relationship with the defendant, provide a legitimate basis for seeking judicial relief. The defendant's objections regarding the validity of the plaintiff's title documents and the Digitally signed ANURADHA by ANURADHA JINDAL CS SCJ 473/17 JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:14:33 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 41/47unauthorized status of the colony may impact the final relief granted but do not negate the plaintiff's standing to bring the suit. Therefore, this issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 7:
Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD1.
110. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant No. 1. The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It is a well-established principle of equity that a party seeking relief from the court must do so with honesty, integrity, and full disclosure of all relevant facts. This issue requires scrutiny of whether the plaintiff has concealed or misrepresented material facts that could have influenced the adjudication of the case.
111. The doctrine of "clean hands" is fundamental to equitable relief. A litigant must demonstrate that they have acted fairly and transparently in their dealings, and any misrepresentation, fraud, or suppression of facts can disentitle them from relief. A party withholding material facts cannot claim relief based on equitable principles.
112. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has deliberately concealed material facts, including the alleged invalidity of ownership documents such as the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt. It is further claimed that the plaintiff misrepresented the nature of the tenancy, alleging a landlord-tenant relationship beginning in 2006 while the Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL CS SCJ 473/17 JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:14:39 +0530 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 42/47defendant asserts possession since before 1987. Additionally, the plaintiff is accused of failing to disclose the unauthorized status of the colony, raising questions about the enforceability of property rights in such an area.
113. The plaintiff, however, has disclosed the documents forming the basis of his ownership claim. These documents were exhibited in court, and while their validity is under dispute, their disclosure indicates transparency. The nature of the landlord-tenant relationship remains contested, but this is a factual dispute rather than evidence of suppression or misrepresentation. Moreover, the plaintiff has acknowledged the unauthorized nature of the colony in his affidavit, thereby demonstrating that this fact was not concealed.
114. The plaintiff has disclosed all material documents, including ownership documents and notices issued to the defendant. The dispute centers on the validity of these claims, not their concealment. Courts differentiate between disputes over interpretation or validity of disclosed facts and suppression of material facts. The defendant has not produced substantive evidence to prove intentional suppression or misrepresentation by the plaintiff.
115. The burden of proof lies with the defendant to establish that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. Mere allegations or disputed facts without corroboration cannot establish suppression. The defendant's allegations appear to be an attempt to undermine the plaintiff's credibility rather than substantiate any deliberate concealment.
Digitally signedANURADHA by ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:14:46 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 43/47116. Based on the evidence presented, the plaintiff has approached the court with clean hands and has not suppressed material facts. The ownership documents, tenancy claims, and the status of the colony have been disclosed and form part of the judicial record. The defendant's claims of suppression are unsubstantiated. Therefore, this issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Issue 8:
Whether present suit is barred by Section 33/35 of Indian Stamp Act and provision of Indian Registration Act? OPD1.
117. The Onus to prove this issue was upon Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff's reliance on unregistered documents (Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4) may attract objections under the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act. However, in the context of unauthorized colonies, such documents are often treated as evidence of possession rather than absolute title. Courts have recognized the practical limitations of registration in such colonies. While these documents may not be admissible as evidence of ownership, they can be relied upon to prove possession and the Plaintiff's entitlement to the property.
118. The issue pertains to whether the present suit is barred under the provisions of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. This objection by the defendant challenges the admissibility and enforceability of the plaintiff's Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:14:52 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 44/47
documents relied upon to establish ownership and other claims concerning the suit property.
119. Under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, an instrument not duly stamped is liable to be impounded. Section 35 provides that such an instrument cannot be admitted as evidence for any purpose unless the requisite stamp duty and penalty are paid. Similarly, under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, certain documents, including instruments of conveyance, require mandatory registration to be admissible as evidence of ownership or transfer of property.
120. In the present case, the plaintiff has relied upon unregistered documents, such as the General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt, to establish ownership of the suit property. These documents are executed in favor of the plaintiff by one Satbir Singh, who is claimed to be the original owner. The defendant contends that these documents are insufficiently stamped and unregistered and thus cannot be considered valid instruments of title under the law.
121. The plaintiff argues that these documents are admissible as they are not intended to convey absolute ownership but merely demonstrate the plaintiff's possession and the basis of his claim to the property. The plaintiff further contends that in unauthorized colonies like Sangam Vihar, transactions often occur through such documents due to the lack of regularized processes for registration. The plaintiff has also offered to pay any requisite stamp duty and penalty, should the court direct it.
Digitally signedANURADHA by ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:14:58 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 45/47122. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656, held that transactions through GPA, Agreement to Sell, and similar instruments do not amount to a transfer of ownership and cannot substitute for a registered deed of conveyance. However, the Court also clarified that such documents could be considered for collateral purposes, such as demonstrating possession or the intent behind a transaction.
123. In this context, the plaintiff's documents, though unregistered, can be admitted as evidence for collateral purposes, such as proving possession or tenancy arrangements. These documents do not independently confer ownership but serve to establish the factual background of the plaintiff's claim. Moreover, the plaintiff's offer to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty, if directed, addresses the objection under the Stamp Act.
124. The defendant has also failed to establish any superior title or ownership over the suit property. While challenging the validity of the plaintiff's documents, the defendant has not produced any registered or otherwise valid documents proving his ownership. The defendant's claim of possession since 1987 does not override the plaintiff's right to seek possession as the rightful owner.
125. In light of the above, the objection under Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and the provisions of the Indian Registration Act does not bar the maintainability of the suit. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff are admissible for collateral purposes and form a sufficient basis Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.12.10 17:15:04 +0530 CS SCJ 473/17 SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.PAGE NO. 46/47
to adjudicate the dispute. Therefore, this issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Relief:
126. Based on the findings in the preceding issues, the instant suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff with the following reliefs:
o A decree for possession of the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint.
o A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third-party interests in the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint.
o Recovery of arrears of rent amounting to ₹2,00,000/-, as prayed for in prayer clause (c) of the plaint.
o Damages/mesne profits for unauthorized occupation, at the rate of ₹7,000/- per month from the date of filing until possession is handed over.
o Interest on arrears of rent and mesne profits at the rate of 9% per annum until realization.
o The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.
127. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.12.10 17:15:12 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (ANURADHA JINDAL) ON 10.12.2024 ASCJ-cum-JSCC-CUM-GJ (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi/10.12.2024 CS SCJ 473/17
SH. DEVENDER SINGH YADAV VS. SH. MUNNI LAL & ANR.
PAGE NO. 47/47