Delhi District Court
Shri Rajinder Kumar Bangia vs Shri Vibhu Bhandari on 29 August, 2024
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK :
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-11
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT (Comm.) No. 604/23
CNR NO.DLWT01-006390-2023
IN THE MATTER OF :
RAJINDER KUMAR BANGIA
S/o Late Sh. K.F. Bangia
R/o Flat No. BB-34F, Janak Puri
New Delhi - 110 058
..........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
VIBHU BHANDARI
S/o Sh. Anil Bhandari
R/o Flat No. G-01, Ground Floor
Front Portion at E-22A
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110 027
2nd Address:
E-3, First Floor,
Tagore Garden Extension
New Delhi - 110 027
..........DEFENDANT
Date of Institution of Suit : 16.08.2023
Date of Arguments : 05.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2024
Decision : Suit Partially Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit by a landlord against the tenant for the recovery of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction, arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit.
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the plaint, are;
CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 1 of 22:: 2 ::
(a) Plaintiff Rajender Kumar Bangia is stated to be a senior citizen and owner of a Flat bearing No. G-01, Ground Floor, Front Portion, E-22A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 (hereinafter referred to as 'the property').
He rented out the property to the defendant/ Vibhu Bhandari for a limited period of 22 months, from 13.11.2013 to 12.09.2015, vide a registered lease deed dated 13.11.2013 on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for the first eleven months with an understanding that the rent shall be enhanced to Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) for the following eleven months. The rent was excluding the electricity & water charges.
(b) It has been disclosed that the plaintiff kept extending the tenancy of the defendant and the same was lastly extended on 10.05.2019 for a further period of 22 months, from 01.05.2019 to 28.02.2021, at a rent of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only) per month. The tenancy expired because of efflux of time but plaintiff allowed the defendant to continue to occupy the property. Plaintiff claims that defendant was irregular in paying the rent and did not pay the rent from the month of January 2022 to December 2022 and a sum of Rs.2,77,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand and Two Hundred only) became outstanding. Plaintiff kept demanding the arrears but defendant failed to pay the same. Finally, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy by issuing a CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 2 of 22 :: 3 ::
legal notice dated 27.03.2023 to the defendant asking him to vacate the rented property and pay the arrears of rent but he failed to do so. Hence, the present suit.
3. By means of the present suit, plaintiff has claimed the possession of the property, arrears of rent and damages. Plaintiff claims that the lease deed contained a stipulation that defendant would be liable to pay a penalty at the rate of Rs.500/- per day in case of delay in payment of rent for two consecutive months and therefore, he has become liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.1,52,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand and Four Hundred only). In addition, plaintiff has also sought the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
4. Summons were served on the defendant. He contested the suit by filing the written statement. He mentioned that the suit has not been properly valued and the appropriate court fees has not been affixed. He claimed that plaintiff has failed to give a proper description of the suit property. He admitted the execution of the rent deeds dated 13.11.2013 and 10.05.2019 but claimed himself to be the owner of the property. He claimed to have invested substantial amount in making improvements in the property. He mentioned that the property was in a bad condition and he carried out the renovation work to make it habitable. He claimed that plaintiff agreed to sell him the property by making an oral agreement to the said effect. He conveyed that in terms of the oral agreement, he made cash payments to the sister of the plaintiff towards the sale consideration of the property. He mentioned that CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 3 of 22 :: 4 ::
plaintiff executed the subsequent lease deed dated 10.05.2019 with an assurance that he would execute the sale deed of the property after receiving the balance amount of sale consideration. He claimed that a written agreement was also executed in respect of the said transaction but the plaintiff did not hand him over the copy of the said agreement. He mentioned that plaintiff assured him that he would hand over the document after the payment of the entire amount of the sale consideration. He claimed to have made cash payments to the plaintiff in excess of the value of the property. He accepted the service of the legal notice and mentioned that a reply to the same was issued by his counsel. He mentioned that he is not in arrears of rent and prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
5. On completion of pleadings, plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Defendant opposed the application by filing reply.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record in the light of respective submissions.
7. Record shows that defendant has made clear and unequivocal admissions in the written statement. He has admitted the execution of the lease deeds dated 13.11.2013 and 10.05.2019. In these lease deeds, the status of the plaintiff has been disclosed to be that of 'owner/ lesser' while that of defendant has been mentioned as 'lessee'. The lease deeds contain the terms and conditions on which the tenancy was created. Plaintiff has claimed that defendant was irregular in paying the rent and CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 4 of 22 :: 5 ::
therefore, he terminated the tenancy by issuing a legal notice dated 27.03.2023. Defendant has admitted the service of the legal notice mentioning that he issued a reply to the same through his counsel. The reply dated 10.04.2023, issued by the defendant to the legal notice of the plaintiff, is on record.
8. It has been held in "Payal Vision Ltd. Vs Radhika Chaudhary" 2000(7) SCC 120 that in a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant, all that is required to be established is the existence of landlord tenant relationship and the termination of tenancy either by lapse of time or by means of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The observations made in the matter are as under:
"6. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff-landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the Court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which reads as under:
"Judgment on admissions-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 5 of 22
:: 6 ::
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
7. The above sufficiently empowers the Court trying the suit to deliver judgment based on admissions whenever such admissions are sufficient for the grant of the relief prayed for. Whether or not there was an unequivocal and clear admission on either of the two aspects to which we have referred above and which are relevant to a suit for possession against a tenant is, therefore, the only question that falls for determination in this case and in every other case where the plaintiff seeks to invoke the powers of the Court under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and prays for passing of the decree on the basis of admission. Having said that we must add that whether or not there is a clear admission upon the two aspects noted above is a matter to be seen in the fact situation prevailing in each case. Admission made on the basis of pleadings in a given case cannot obviously be taken as an admission in a different fact situation."
9. It has been observed in the matter of "Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs Union Bank of India and Ors." AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2740 that discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC can be exercised by the court even in the absence of an application. The observations made in the matter are as under:
"12. As to the object of the Order XII, Rule 6 we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated that - where a claim is CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 6 of 22 :: 7 ::
admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. - We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. Textually, there is nothing in Order 12 Rule 6 which limits the powers of the Court to await the application of the party seeking a decree. A decree can be conveniently and expeditiously drawn even in the absence of an application by the party seeking it and if the requisite condition spelt out in the provision exists."
10. Coming back to the facts of the present case. Record shows that defendant has given evasive replies to the averments contained in the plaint. He admitted the execution of the lease deeds but claimed himself to be the owner of the property. The lease deed categorically describes the relationship between the parties to be that of a landlord and tenant. Defendant cannot wriggle out of the contents of the lease deed by putting forward evasive replies. It is a settled preposition that an evasive denial amounts to an admission. Defendant has presented contradictory versions about the agreement to sell. Defendant mentioned in para no. 7 of the preliminary objections of the Written Statement that plaintiff entered with him into an oral agreement to sell the CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 7 of 22 :: 8 ::
property. He changed this version in para no. 13 of the preliminary objections of the Written Statement by mentioning that a written agreement was also executed in respect of the sale of the property. He claimed that plaintiff assured him to hand over the written agreement on the payment of the entire sale consideration. He claimed to have made monthly cash payments to the sister of the plaintiff towards the sale consideration of the property but neither the sale consideration amount nor the actual amount paid by him has been disclosed. It is evident that defendant has raised vague pleas just to create a camouflage. It is apparent from the record that he has no defence to the plaintiff's claim.
11. It has been held in "Amit Kumar Vs Amit Kumar" FAO (OS) 589/2015 NCM No.24212/2015, decided on 23.11.2015 by a Division Bench of High Court of Delhi that the court while considering the applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has to consider whether the so called defence raised by the defendant is plausible or is completely sham. It was observed in the matter that merely because the defendant denies the claim of the plaintiff, it would not ipso facto imply that there is a defence raised by the plaintiff that requires framing of issues and relegate the parties to trial. It was held that merely because defendant raises some dispute, it cannot be said that there is no unequivocal admission. It was observed in Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Ltd.'s case (supra) that no trial is required in the matter where the defence raised is a moonshine.
CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 8 of 22:: 9 ::
12. In the matter of "Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kavit P. Lalwani" 2012 (191) DLT 594, the High Court of Delhi laid down broad principles for dealing with a suit for ejectment filed by a landlord against the tenant, which are as under:
"26.1 Upon expiry of the term of the lease or on termination of the monthly lease by a notice to quit, the lessee must vacate the property on his own and not wait for the lessor to bring a suit where he can raise all kinds of contests in order to profit from Court delays.
26.2 Expiry of lease by efflux of time results in the determination of the relationship between the lessor and the lessee and no notice of determination of the lease is required. Mere acceptance of rent by the landlord from the tenant in possession after the lease has been determined either by efflux of time or by notice to quit would not create a tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant the status of a tenant or a right to be in possession.
26.3 Notice of termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act sent by registered post to the tenant is deemed to be served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
26.4 The object of the termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is to communicate the intention of the landlord that he wants the premises back and to give 15 days time to vacate. Such notice is not a pleading but a mere communication of the intention of the recipient. Such notice is to be liberally construed as the tenants only right is to get notice of 15 days to vacate. The tenant is under a statutory obligation to vacate the subject property on the expiry of 15 days of the CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 9 of 22 :: 10 ::
notice.
26.5 A suit for ejectment is different from a title suit for possession against a trespasser. In a suit for possession against a trespasser, title can be in dispute but in a suit for ejectment against an erstwhile tenant, ordinarily there is no dispute of title as the tenant is estopped from denying the landlords title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The dispute is generally on two counts; one, about the assent to continue after the expiry of the fixed term lease by efflux of time and second, about the valid termination in case of monthly lease. The tenant resisting the claim for possession has to plead with sufficiently detailed pleadings, particulars and documents why he must not be ejected and what right he has to continue in possession. There is really nothing else to be tried in such a suit. A suit of this nature can ordinarily be decided on first hearing itself either on the pleadings and the documents or, if need be, by examining the parties under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
26.6 A suit for ejectment of a lessee is not a type of a case where by forging a postal receipt and falsely claiming the issue of the notice to quit, the plaintiff would gain any particular advantage for he could have always served a notice and filed a suit three weeks later. On the other hand, by serving a self- serving denial, the defendant seeks to get an advantage of dragging the proceedings and continuing to enjoy the property without having to pay the current market rent. Having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct and probabilities, if a notice which can be issued and served again without loss of opportunity, the probability that a person would file a fake proof of sending is nil. On the CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 10 of 22 :: 11 ::
other hand, if a notice is of a type which had to be served prior to an event that has already occurred, and by its very nature cannot be remedied by a fresh notice, there may be a possibility of it being faked such as a notice exercising the option to renew lease before its expiry. In that case, the Court will look at it differently.
26.7 The pleadings are the foundation of litigation and must set-forth sufficient factual details. Experience has shown that all kinds of pleadings are introduced and even false and fabricated documents are filed in civil cases because there is an inherent profit in continuation of possession. In a suit for ejectment, it is necessary for the defendant to plead specifically as to the basis on which he is claiming a right to continue in possession. A defendant has to show a subsisting right to continue as a lessee. No issue arises on vague pleadings. A vague denial of the receipt of a notice to quit is not sufficient to raise an issue.
To rebut the presumption of service of a notice to quit, the defendant has to plead material particulars in the written statement such as where after receiving the plaint and the documents, the defendant has checked-up with the Post-Office and has obtained a certificate that the postal receipt filed by the plaintiff was forged and was not issued by the concerned Post Office.
26.8 A self-serving denial by the defendant and more so in these types of cases, cannot hold back the Court from exercising its jurisdiction to decree a suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Raising a plea of non- receipt of notice to quit and seeking an issue on it is obviously to drag on the litigation and keep on holding to the suit property without having to pay the current market CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 11 of 22 :: 12 ::
rentals, is not sufficient to raise an issue and, therefore, liable to be rejected..................
26.12 The purpose of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment.
The thrust of amendment of Order XII Rule 6 is that in an appropriate case a party on the admission of the other party can press for judgment as a matter of legal right. If a dishonest litigant is permitted to delay the judgment on the ground that he would show during the trial that he had not received the notice, the very purpose of the amendment would be frustrated.
26.13 Under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the lessee is estopped from denying the title of the transferee landlord. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the landlord meaning thereby that so long as the tenant has not surrendered the possession, he cannot dispute the title of the landlord. Howsoever, defective the title of the landlord may be, a tenant is not permitted to dispute the same unless he has surrendered the possession of his landlord.
26.14 A lease of a immovable property is determined by forfeiture in case the lessee renounces his character by setting up a title in a third person. The effect of such a disclaimer is that it brings to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant and such a tenant cannot continue in possession. Section 111(g)(2) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is based on public policy and the principle of estoppel.
26.15 There is a flood of litigation unnecessarily burdening the Courts only CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 12 of 22 :: 13 ::
because obdurate tenants refuse to vacate the tenanted premises even after their tenancy period expires by efflux of time or the monthly tenancy has been brought to an end by service of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It has become quite common for the tenants whose tenancy has been terminated to continue the occupation to drive the landlords to file suits for possession and mesne profits and thereafter raise false claims and defences to continue the possession of the premises. The motivation of the tenant to litigate with the landlord is that he wants to continue the occupation on payment of rent fixed years ago. The continuation of possession in such cases should therefore be permitted upon payment of market rent. In that case, inherent intent of the unscrupulous tenant to continue frivolous litigation would be reduced to a large extent."
13. It can be seen that defendant has no defence to the plaintiff's claim and the defence raised by him is moonshine.
Defendant has presented vague pleadings. He can not resist a decree of possession on the grounds disclosed in the written statement. Coming to the main plea of the defendant that plaintiff agreed to sell him the suit property. Defendant claimed in the written statement that plaintiff initially entered into an oral agreement to sell the property and subsequently, a written agreement was also prepared. He has conveyed that the written agreement is lying in the custody of the plaintiff and he has failed to hand him over the same. Be as it may, admittedly, the agreement to sell was never registered. Even if the version presented by the defendant is accepted, still, the question which arises for consideration is, whether he can resist a decree of CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 13 of 22 :: 14 ::
possession on the ground that an agreement to sell the suit property has been executed by the plaintiff in his favour. The law on this aspect is very clear that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be relied on to seek the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In other words, an unregistered document shall have no effect for the purpose of Section 53A of the said Act. It has been held in the matter of "M/s Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs J.S. Vohra" AIR 2016 Delhi 203 as under :-
17. A mere agreement to sell of immovable property does not create any right in the property save the right to enforce the said agreement. Thus, even if the respondent/plaintiff is found to have agreed to sell the property let out to the appellant, the appellant/defendant would not get any right to occupy that property as an agreement purchaser. This Court in "Jiwan Das Vs. Narain Das" AIR 1981 Delhi 291 has held that in fact no rights enure to the agreement purchaser, not even after the passing of a decree for specific performance and till conveyance in accordance with law and in pursuance thereto is executed. Thus in law, the appellant has no right to remain in occupation of the premises or retain possession of the premises merely because of the agreement to sell in his favour.
15. The aforesaid position is also reiterated by this Court in the case of Sunil Kapoor (supra) on which reliance is placed by Mr. Aggarwal, wherein the Court has held that the appellants / defendants do not have any right to remain in possession of the suit premises till they acquire a title in pursuance of the decree for specific performance.
A Division Bench of this Court, on an identical issue, in the case of "Pawandeep Singh & Anr. v. Gurdeep Singh Virdi" RFA(OS) 42/2018, decided CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 14 of 22 :: 15 ::
on August 02, 2019 has in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 held as under:-
19. The law on this aspect is clear. An unregistered Agreement to Sell cannot be used as a shield under Section 53 A of the TPA since Section 17 (1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908 makes the documents containing a contract to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 A, compulsorily registrable. If such documents are not registered, they shall have no effect for the purposes of Section 53 A. .....
.....
21. The appellants herein do not have any right to remain in possession of the suit premises till they acquire a title in pursuance to a decree for specific performance. It was so held in "Sunil Kapoor Vs Himmat Singh" ILR (2010) 11 Delhi 616. We may note that SLP (C) No.6010/2010 against the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12.03.2010.
16. So it follows that in the facts, the Trial court has rightly struck off the defence of the appellant / defendant on failure to file written statement and passed the decree of possession. In fact, even the right of limited cross examination would not have helped the case of the appellant as the factum of tenancy, duration of tenancy, rent payable, termination of the same, have not been disputed, so as to enable the appellant secure the possession."
14. Coming back to the present case. The observations made by the High Court of Delhi in Jagdambey Builder's case (supra) CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 15 of 22 :: 16 ::
demolishes the defendant's argument that he is entitled to retain the possession of the suit property after the execution of the agreement to sell. The High Court of Delhi has observed that mere agreement to sell the immovable property does not confer any right in the property except the right to enforce the said agreement. The court observed that even if the plaintiff is found to have agreed to sell the property let out to the defendant, it would not give any right to the defendant to continue to occupy the property after the termination of tenancy. Defendant no right to retain the possession of the suit property till he acquires the title pursuant to a decree of specific performance. The argument of the defendant that he was retaining the possession of the property as owner by virtue of agreement to sell does not hold ground. It may be noted that even the date of the alleged agreement to sell has also not been specified in the written statement.
15. In view of the discussions made in the aforesaid paras, the argument that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood terminated on execution of the agreement to sell has no merit. There is irrefutable evidence to establish that defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property. Defendant has admitted in the pleadings as well as in the reply to the legal notice that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit property. The alleged agreement to sell does not confer any right on the defendant to remain in possession of the suit property. Defendant had no right to remain in occupation or retain the possession of the property merely because the agreement was executed in his favour. The status of defendant continued to be a tenant even after the CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 16 of 22 :: 17 ::
execution of agreement.
16. It is an admitted case of the parties that defendant was inducted as a tenant for a limited period of time. It appears from the record that after expiry of the initial lease deed dated 13.11.2013, defendant continued to occupy the rented premises with the consent of the plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff executed a fresh lease deed in favour of the defendant on 10.05.2019 for a period of 22 months. It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties that the lease expired due to efflux of time. In such circumstances, no notice of determination of the lease was required. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision in the matter of "Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) wherein it has been categorically held that in case, expiry of lease by efflux of time results in determination of the relationship between the lessor and lessee, no notice of determination of lease is required. In the present matter, although the notice of termination of tenancy was not required to be issued but the same was issued and it was duly served on the defendant. Defendant has admitted the service of notice.
17. Further, the defence raised by the defendant that he purchased the suit property from the plaintiff appears to be an afterthought. This conclusion stands fortified from the fact that defendant did not even whisper about the alleged agreement to sell in the reply issued by him to the legal notice of the plaintiff. It has been held in the matter of "Pradeep Khanna Vs Renu Khetrapal" (RFA No.638/2014, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 10.04.2015) that a tenant, whose tenancy has been CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 17 of 22 :: 18 ::
terminated, should not be allowed to continue to occupy the premises on the basis of bogus and false defence. In this matter, the High Court of Delhi cited with approval various case laws which are squarely applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present case. Some of the decisions cited by the High Court of Delhi are;
"20.1 In 'Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria', the Supreme Court held that false claims and defences are serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. The Supreme Court held as under:-
"False claims and false defences"
84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount.
This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent."
20.2 In 'Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010)' 2 SCC 114, the Supreme Court observed that a new creed of litigants have cropped up in the last 40 years who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:-
"1. For many centuries, Indian CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 18 of 22 :: 19 ::
society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
(Emphasis supplied) 20.3 In 'Satyender Singh v. Gulab Singh' 2012 (129) DRJ 128, the CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 19 of 22 :: 20 ::
Division Bench of this Court following Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) observed that the Courts are flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties due to which the judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming Courts' time for a wrong cause.
The observations of this Court are as under:-
"2. As rightly observed by the Supreme Court, Satya is a basic value of life which was required to be followed by everybody and is recognized since many centuries. In spite of caution, courts are continued to be flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties. The judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming courts time for a wrong cause. Efforts are made by the parties to steal a march over their rivals by resorting to false and incoherent statements made before the Court. Indeed, it is a nightmare faced by a Trier of Facts; required to stitch a garment, when confronted with a fabric where the weft, shuttling back and forth across the warp in weaving, is nothing but lies. As the threads of the weft fall, the yarn of the warp also collapses; and there is no fabric left."
(Emphasis supplied) 20.4 In 'State Bank of Patiala v. Chander Mohan Jain' 1996 RLR 404, the Division Bench of this Court observed that it has become quite common for tenants whose tenancies have been terminated to continue occupation as CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 20 of 22 :: 21 ::
trespassers and drive the landlords to file suit for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords may last. The observation of this Court is reproduced hereunder:-
"24. ....It has become quite common for tenants, whose tenancies have been terminated validly, to continue occupation as trespassers, drive the landlords to file suits for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords may last or how far the landlords or their legal representatives could fight the tenants-particularly if the tenant had stopped payment of admitted rents. It is rather unfortunate that even public sector bodies like the appellant are taking such postures and driving landlords from pillar to post..."
18. In the light of discussions made in the aforementioned paras, I am of the considered opinion that defendant has made clear and unequivocal admissions in the written statement. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. The service of legal notice of termination of tenancy has been admitted. The plea taken by the defendant that he is occupying the suit property because plaintiff sold him the same has no merit. Defendant has no vested right to continue to occupy the suit property after the termination of tenancy. There is also no merit in the plea that the description of the suit property is incorrect. The suit property is a flat identifiable by a number. In so far as the parties are concerned, they are on the same footing that the suit has been filed in respect of the same rented flat, in respect of which, the lease deed was executed. Similarly, the plea about the deficiency CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 21 of 22 :: 22 ::
of the court fee is also without merit. Plaintiff is stated to be a senior citizen. This appears to be an apt case where the discretion vested in the court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC should be exercised. The object of order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment on the basis of the admissions made by the defendant. In view of unequivocal admissions in the written statement, it is impossible for the defendant to defend the plaintiff's claim even if the matter is put to trial. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
19. The suit stands partially decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with following reliefs:
i. A decree of possession of property bearing Flat No. G-01, Ground Floor, Front Portion, E-22A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027.
ii. No order as to costs.
20. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open Court on this 29th day of August, 2024 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-11 Rouse Avenue District Courts 29.08.2024 Note: The judgment has been pronounced in terms of directions contained in the transfer order dated 21.08.2024 bearing No. 32/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2024.
CS (Comm.) No.604/23 Rajinder Bangia Vs. Vibhu Bhandari Page 22 of 22