Delhi District Court
Major Singh Thakur vs The Diamond Ring Vatika on 2 August, 2025
Major Singh Thakur vs. Diamond Ring Vatika & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITEN MEHRA:
DISTRICT JUDGE - 10, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CS DJ NO.2154/2022
CNR NO. DLCT01-012902-2022
In the matter of:
Major Singh Thakur
Sh. Major Singh Thakur
S/o Sunder Singh
R/o B-178, Gali no-4,
Amrit Vihar, Burari,
Delhi-110084.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. The Diamond Ring Vatika
(Proprietorship/ Partner ship firm)
(Through their proprietor/partners)
Khasra no.437/2, Main Road, Laxmi Vihar,
(near City Child Hospital), Burari, Delhi-110084.
2. Dr. Vijinder Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh
R/o DDA flat no.366, Golden Jublee Apartment,
Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi-110085
Khasra no.437/2, Main Road, Laxmi Vihar,
(near City Child Hospital), Burari, Delhi-110084.
.....Defendants
CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.1/27
Date of institution: 12.09.2022
Date on which reserved for judgment: 29.07.2025
Date of decision : 02.08.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION UNDER SEC.6 OF
THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this present suit for recovery of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants on 12.09.2022 claiming to have been dispossessed by the defendants on 25.03.2022.
2. The present suit was originally filed before the Ld. District Judge Commercial Court -02, Central District Tis Hazari as a commercial dispute. However, vide order dated 16.09.2022, the Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court observed that the property in question was located in an unauthorized colony and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mrs. Soni Dave vs M/s Trans Asian Industries , AIR 2016 Delhi 186 held that the present dispute was not a commercial dispute as per section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The present CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.2/27 suit was subsequently transferred to this Court for adjudication.
3. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint, prior to issuance of summons to the defendants, which was allowed vide order dated 11.10.2022.
Plaintiff's version as per the amended plaint:
4. The Plaintiff and his partner namely Sh. Ram Lakhan Sahni were running their business under the name and style of 'KRISHNA VATIKA' of facilitating decorated lawns and accommodation for parties/marriages etc.
5. The said Sh. Ram Lakhan and the defendant no.2/ Dr. Vijinder Pal Singh entered into a notarised rent agreement dated 13.11.2013 with respect to 2200 sq. yards (approx.) with 10 rooms and boundary wall, out of Khasra no. 437/2 Main Road, Laxmi Vihar, Burari, Delhi - 110084. The said premises were taken on rent by Sh. Ram Lakhan for a period of 57 months from 1.11.2013 till 31.10.2018, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/- per CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.3/27 month.
6. In the first week of October 2017, Sh. Ram Lakhan Sahni relinquished his right/share/title/interest in KRISHNA VATIKA in favour of plaintiff and thereafter, plaintiff has continued the said business under the same name and style as his sole proprietorship.
7. The Defendant no. 2 executed rent agreements on 13.10.2017 and 02.06.2018 qua property measuring approximately 1000 sq. yards, bearing Khasra No.437/1& 2 situated in the area of Village Burari, Lal Dora Abadi, known as Laxmi Vihar, Main Road, Near City Child Hospital, Burari, Delhi-110084 in favour of plaintiff for the period 01.10.2017 till 31.5.2023 at a monthly rent of Rs.70,000/- per month. The said property has also been depicted in red colour in the site plan filed by the plaintiff.
8. As per the plaintiff, the original copy of the rent agreements dated 13.11.2013, 13.10.2017 and 02.06.2018 are CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.4/27 with the defendant no.2, who only provided the photocopy of the same to the plaintiff.
9. In October, 2018 the plaintiff also changed the name of his sole proprietorship from 'Krishna Vatika' to 'Green Garden'.
10. The plaintiff regularly paid the rent to the defendant no.2, and stated that on 08.03.2022 he last paid an amount of Rs.
70,000/- to the defendant no.2 in cash towards rent for the month of March, 2022 , as well as electricity bills MCD Taxes and also defended all show-cause notices, challans issued against the property. The plaintiff has also invested huge amount in the suit property to conduct its business.
11. Further, the plaintiff had also already accepted bookings for the months of February-March, 2022 alongwith advance amounts from various customers.
12. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the evening of 24.03.2022 at about 9 PM, the plaintiff came to his house from CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.5/27 the suit property and next day ie. on 25.03.2022 when the plaintiff reached the suit property at 10:30 AM, the defendant no.2, owner/proprietor/partner of defendant no.1, stopped him from entering the suit property without any rhyme or reason. When the plaintiff objected, the main gate of suit property was locked and he was forcefully thrown out from the suit property and the defendants have usurped all the infrastructure which was put in place by the plaintiff to run his business.
13. The plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant no.2 to restore the physical possession of suit property to him and not alter the suit property, but to no avail. The defendants have gone ahead and altered the suit property and have also started their own business under the name and style of 'The Diamond Ring Vatika', without any licence and statutory permissions.
14. It is submitted that plaintiff was in possession of the suit property till the mid night of 24.03.2022, when he was forcibly evicted, when infact, the plaintiff has a legal right to remain in the suit property till 31.03.2023 in terms of rent agreement dated CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.6/27 02.6.2018. The defendants in collusion with each other have dispossessed the plaintiff from suit property and have also caused him monetary loss and loss of reputation as he has been unable to to his customers for the months of February and March, 2022.
15. The said acts of the defendants have raised the plaintiff's apprehension that, they might sub-let/create third party interest over and harm the suit property and damage the status of plaintiff. The plaintiff also claims that he was earning a monthly income of around Rs.1 Lakh per month from the suit property, which the defendants are liable to compensate him till they hand over the possession of the property to him.
16. The plaintiff thus seeks the following reliefs:
a) Pass a decree of possession in respect of bearing khasra no. 37/1 & 2 situated in the area of village Burari, Lal Dora Abadi Known as Laxmi Vihar, Burari, Delhi - 110084 area measuring 1000 sq. yards approx. in favour of plaintiff against the Defendants.
b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby directing him to remove/demolish the alteration, business of the Defendants from the suit property and directed them to restore possession in favour of plaintiff with original status and position.
(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendant, their CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.7/27 attorneys, employee, agent etc. to sub-let/ create any third-party interest over the suit property or facilitate party /functions /marriage at the suit property.
(d) Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants.
(e) Pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants, in the interest of justice.
Written statements by the defendants Written statement of the defendant no.1
17. The defendant no.1, i.e. Diamond Ring Vatika filed its written statement through its proprietor Sh. Dhananjay Guria, in which the preliminary objections were raised that the rent agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was neither stamped nor registered and hence was not admissible in evidence. Further, there was no cause of action against the defendant no.1, as it had taken possession of the suit property without any objection from the plaintiff or any other party. Further, the plaintiff had failed to implead his partner Sh. Ram Lakhan, who was a necessary party to the suit. The plaint was also stated to not have been verified as per the Delhi High Court Rules. The plaintiff was also guilty of suppressio-veri and suggestio-falsi as he had not disclosed his unpaid rental amounts and having left the suit property himself CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.8/27 surreptitiously.
18. In the reply on merits, the version of the plaintiff was denied and the defendant no.1 stated that he was informed by the defendant no.2 that the suit property was lying vacant as the plaintiff had surreptitiously left the same without clearing the rental dues of Rs. 23,25,224/-, and had also switched off his mobile phone to avoid the defendant no.2.
19. The defendant no.1 sought the dismissal of the present suit with special costs.
Written statement of the defendant no.2
20. The defendant no.2, i.e. Dr. Vijender Pal Singh filed his written statement in which similar preliminary objections were raised that the rent agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was neither stamped nor registered and hence was not admissible in evidence. Further, there was no cause of action against the CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.9/27 defendant no.2, as the plaintiff had himself vacated the suit property on 31.03.2022. Further, there were outstanding rental dues of Rs. 30,25,224/- against the plaintiff, against which the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 30.03.2022 and Rs. 4,00,000/- on 05.04.2022 and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 23,25,224/- within three months, i.e. on or before 30.06.2022, which have not been paid by him till date. The defendant no.2 also raised the preliminary objection that the plaintiff had not impleaded Sh. Ram Lakhan Sahani, who was a necessary party and that the plaint had not been verified as per the rules.
21. In the reply on merits, with respect to para no.2 of the plaint alleging execution of a rent agreement dated 13.11.2013 between the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff's partner Sh. Ram Lakhan Sahni, the defendant no.2 'neither admitted nor denied' the same. The defendant no.2 admitted the execution of the rent agreements dated 13.102017 and 02.06.2018 with the plaintiff and reiterated that the plaintiff owed rental dues to him as stated CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.10/27 earlier. The defendant no.2 also denied that the plaintiff had been paying rent regularly to him. He reiterated that the plaintiff had himself left the property with outstanding rental dues of Rs. 23,25,224/-. He also denied that the plaintiff had made any investments in the suit property. The defendant no.2 also sought the dismissal of the present suit with special costs. Plaintiff's replication to the written statement of the defendant no.2
22. The plaintiff filed replication only to the written statement of the defendant no.2 and denied that that rent agreement was inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiff also denied that he had himself vacated the suit property on 31.03.2022 as he was unable to pay the rental dues of Rs. 23,25,224/- to the defendant no.2. The plaintiff reiterated the averments in the plaint and denied the version of the defendant no.2 as stated in his written statement. CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.11/27 Issues framed:
23. Vide order dated 24.01.2024, the following issues were framed in the present suit:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act with respect to the suit property ? (OPP)
2. Relief.
Evidence adduced by the Plaintiff
24. The plaintiff Sh. Major Singh Thakur stepped in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A on 21.01.2025 in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint.
25. He placed reliance upon the following documents in support of his case:
1. Original site plan as Ex. PW-1/1.
2.Photographs of suit property along-with visiting cards mentioned as Mark E (colly).
3. Copies of advance booking receipts no.115 to 124 along-with their respective Menu as Ex.PW-1/3 (colly) (OSR) [objected to by Ld. Counsel for defendants on the ground of mode of proof]
4. Copies of repairing/investment receipts as Ex. PW-1/4 CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.12/27 (colly) (OSR) [objected to by Ld. Counsel for defendants on the ground of mode of proof].
5. Copies of property tax receipts as Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) (OSR) [objected to by Ld. Counsel for defendants on the ground of mode of proof]
6. Copies of electricity bills, MCD Challan/notice as Ex.
PW-1/6 (colly) (OSR) [objected to by Ld. Counsel for defendants on the ground of mode of proof].
7. Copies of rent agreements as Mark A & B.
8. Copy of rent agreement along-with copy of aadhar card of parties and witnesses as Mark C.
9. Copy of property tax receipts as Mark D.
26. The plaintiff was cross-examined by Sh. F.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 on 21.01.2025 during which he admitted that rent agreements were not registered before the office of the Sub-Registar. He deposed that he did not know whether rent agreement was required to be registered if the same was for more than one year and admitted that he had not told the landlord to get the same registered. He stated that he had placed on record the agreement with his partner Ram Lakhan Sahani. However, on being asked to point out the same from the judicial file, he admitted that the agreement had not been placed on CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.13/27 record by him. He further deposed that his partner Sh. Ram Lakhan Sahani left the tenanted premises in 2016-17 and that he had informed about the same to Dr. V. P. Singh, defendant no.2 and subsequently rent agreement was entered with him only for 11 months ie. for the period 2017-2018 and thereafter, rent agreement was entered into for five years ie. of 2018-2023. He admitted that the said rent agreement was also not registered before the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff also admitted that he had not impleaded Sh. Ram Lakhan Sahani in the present suit as he left the partnership work in 2016-17. He went on to admit that as per the agreement, the rent of the suit property was Rs.70,000/- p.m. and that he was not given any rent receipt and voluntarily stated that he was paying in cash. He further admitted that he did not file any application before any authority for non-issuance of rent receipt and denied that since he was not paying rent hence, the landlord had not issued any rent receipt and that he did not pay rent in the Covid period ie. 2020-2021 or for the period 2018-19.
27. The plaintiff also admitted that suit premises was bound CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.14/27 from four sides but there were two gates for entry and exit. He stated that one key of the said premises used to remain with him and another key was with the landlord. He deposed that he had met the landlord, may be, in the last month of 2001 and that thereafter, he never met him. He deposed that he went lastly at the suit premises in March, 2024, again said, on 24 th March, 2022. He deposed that when he visited the suit premises, he found that locks had been changed. He admitted that he did not call the police when he found that locks had been changed and that he did not call any person at the suit premises at that point of time and also did not call the landlord. He went on to admit that he also did not make a police complaint after he found that lock was changed and that he also did not meet the landlord. He denied that he did not pay rent in March, 2022 and deposed that as he had paid rent in cash, hence, he could not produce any documents in proof of payment of rent. He denied that no rent was paid and deposed that he might have paid rent through online mode or by cheque but did not remember whether he paid rent of Rs.3 Lakhs and Rs.4 Lakhs through cheque for the period 2018-19. He denied that he had paid a cheque of Rs.3 Lakhs or CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.15/27 paid through online mode and that he had paid Rs.4 Lakhs for the rent of period 2018-19 and stated voluntarily that he was paying month to month rent in cash. He denied that he was not paying the rent regularly or that he had left premises on his own during covid period or that an amount of Rs.23,25,224/- was due till March, 2022 or that he had not made any application before the Court for deposit of rent out of his own volition. He admitted that he had got the documents printed in the market and that there was no signatures of landlord on documents Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/6. He denied that there was no signatures of landlord on Mark A, B, C and that he intentionally did not produce rent agreement before this court. He admitted that he had not given any notice to the landlord to produce original rent agreements and stated voluntarily that he had filed an application before the Court. He denied that he had filed the false case for extortion of money from the landlord and also to avoid the outstanding rent of Rs.23,25,224/-.
28. The abovesaid cross-examination of the plaintiff/PW-1 was also adopted by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1. CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.16/27
29. The plaintiff also closed his evidence on 21.01.2025 and the matter was listed for defendant's evidence. Evidence adduced by the Defendant
30. On 03.03.2025, the ld. Counsels for the defendants no.1 and 2 submitted that, on instructions received, the defendants did not wish to lead any evidence in the present matter. Accordingly the defendants' evidence was closed on the same date. Arguments of the parties
31. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Mahender Sharma has argued that the plaintiff has duly proved his wrongful dispossession by the defendants. Further, the defendant have not led any evidence to disprove the version of the plaintiff and the suit be decreed as prayed for.
32. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 Sh. Vijay Shankar and the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 Sh. Gaurav Jha have argued that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he was CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.17/27 wrongfully dispossessed on 25.03.2022 as claimed and hence, the suit be dismissed.
Issue wise findings and reasons:
Issue no.1
33. I shall now decide the only issue framed in the present suit, which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act with respect to the suit property ? (OPP)
34. The provision of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) reads as follows:
6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.--
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person [through whom he has been in possession or any person] 1 claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought--
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.
1 Subs. by Act 18 of 2018, s 3, for section 10 (w.e.f. 1-10-2018). CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.18/27
35. Section 6 SRA provides a summary remedy to a person who was in possession of any immovable property, who has been dispossessed without his consent otherwise than in due course of law, to file a suit to recover his possession, notwithstanding any title that may be set up in such a suit. Under section 6(2) SRA, such suit has to be instituted within 6 months of the date of dispossession, further no suit under this section can be brought against the government. Further, under section 6 (4) SRA, the section does not operate as a bar to any person from suing to establish his title and recover his possession thereof.
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Mehtab Khan vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan AIR 2013 SC 1099 has held that a proceeding under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession. Questions of title or better rights of possession does not arise for adjudication in a suit under Section 6 where the only issue required to be decided is as to whether the CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.19/27 plaintiff was in possession at any time six months' prior to the date of filing of the suit. The legislative concern underlying Section 6 of the SR Act is to provide a quick remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the arena of law. The same is evident from the provisions of Section 6(3) which bars the remedy of an appeal or even a review against a decree passed in such a suit.
37. Hence, in a case under section 6 SRA, the question of the title is not to be gone into. The plaintiff has to prove that he was in possession of the suit property, that he was wrongfully dispossessed by the defendant and that the suit has been instituted within six months of such dispossession.
38. The plaintiff's case in a nutshell is that his partner Sh. Ram Lakhan Sahni entered into a rent agreement dated 13.11.2013 with the defendant no.2 with respect to the suit property, for the period with effect from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2018, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/- per month. Thereafter, owing to the exit of the plaintiff's partner from the business in October, 2017, two CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.20/27 agreements dated 13.10.2017 and 02.06.2018 were executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. for the period with effect from 01.10.2017 to 31.05.2023, at a monthly rent of Rs. 70,000/- per month. The plaintiff claims that he was regular in payment of the rent to the defendant no.2 and lastly paid an amount of Rs. 70,000/- to him on 08.03.2022. Further, the plaintiff claims that on 25.03.2022, he was unlawfully prevented from entering the suit property by the defendants no.1 and 2 in collusion. The present suit has been filed on 23.09.2022, within the period of six months of the alleged date of dispossession of 25.03.2022.
39. The plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and has relied upon the photocopies of the rent agreements dated 13.11.2013, 13.10.2017 and 02.06.2018 as Mark A, Mark B and Mark C respectively.
40. At this stage, I must note that the photocopy of the rent agreements dated 13.11.2013, Mark A, has been executed between the partner of the plaintiff Ram Lakhan Sahai and the CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.21/27 defendant no.2 for a period of five years. The said agreement is an unregistered agreement and has been executed on a stamp paper of only Rs. 100/-.
41. As per section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act, 1908 any lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent is compulsorily registrable. Further, under section 49 (c) of the Registration Act, no document required by section 17 of the Act to be registered shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. However, as per the proviso to section 17 (1) of the Act, any unregistered document, which is compulsorily registrable, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.
42. In the present case however, the document cannot even be received in evidence even for a collateral purpose as the said rent agreement is insufficiently stamped, having been executed on CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.22/27 stamp paper of only Rs. 100/-. As per Article 35, Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 a lease deed for a term in excess of three years attracts stamp duty for a conveyance under Article 23, for a consideration equal to the amount or value of the average annual rent reserved. Further, under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act an insufficiently stamped document is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever.
43. Further, the agreement dated 02.06.2018, Mark C has also been executed between the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff for a period of five years and is a unregistered document has been executed on a stamp paper of only Rs. 100/-. The said document is also inadmissible in evidence on account of section 17 of the Registration Act and section 25 of the Indian Stamp Act.
44. Only the agreement dated 13.10.2017, Mark B, executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 is admissible in evidence as the same pertains to a period of eleven months, i.e. from 01.10.2017 till 30.08.2017 and does not attract the provisions of section 17 (1)(d) of the Registration Act. CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.23/27
45. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff was the tenant of the defendant no.2 and in possession of the suit property. As per the plaintiff, he was regularly paying rent of Rs. 70,000/- to the defendant no.2 and has been wrongfully dispossessed on 25.03.2022, when the locks of the property were found changed. Whereas, the defendant has asserted that the plaintiff was in arrears of rent of Rs. 30,25,224/- and himself vacated the suit property on 31.03.2022. Further, the plaintiff also made payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 30.03.2022 and Rs. 4,00,000/- on 05.04.2022 as against the arrears of rent and has failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 23,25,224/- to him, which is still due and recoverable.
46. In the cross-examination of the plaintiff/PW-1 dated 21.01.2025, the plaintiff has admitted that he did not have any proof of payment of regular payment of rent to the defendant no.2 as the same was paid in cash by him. Although the plaintiff has denied the suggestion that he did not pay the rent for March, 2022, he has asserted that the same was paid in cash and then has CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.24/27 again stated that "I might have paid rent through online mode or by cheque. I do not remember whether I paid rent of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs through cheque for the period 2018-2019. It is wrong to suggest that I had paid a cheque of Rs. 3 lakhs or paid through online mode. It is wrong to suggest that I had paid Rs. 4 lakhs for the rent of period 2018-2019. Vol I was paying month to month rent in cash." Although the plaintiff has asserted that he was paying regular rent month to month to the defendant no.2, he has given an evasive answer to having paid the amounts of Rs. 3 lakhs and 4 lakhs to the plaintiff, claiming that he cannot remember the same. A tenant who as per his own assertion is paying regular rent would have no occasion to pay any amount in arrears to the landlord. Further, the plaintiff has stated in his cross-examination dated 21.01.2025, that he last visited the suit property in March, 2024 and then corrected himself to state that he visited on 24.03.2022, whereas in the plaint the plaintiff has claimed that he was dispossessed by the defendants on 25.03.2022. Even if the said discrepancy is momentarily kept aside, the plaintiff has admitted that when he found the locks of the suit property to be changed, he did not call the police or call CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.25/27 any person at that time. The plaintiff also did not even call the landlord or even meet him. The said conduct of the plaintiff raises a doubt as any reasonable person who has been wrongfully dispossessed would atleast try to get in touch with the landlord as to why he has been locked out of his tenanted premises or seek assistance from the police in this regards. Further, the plaintiff admittedly did not even send any legal notice to the defendant no. 2 with respect to his unlawful dispossession. The actions of the plaintiff, when weighed on the balance of probabilities, do not come across as the conduct of a reasonable person who has been wrongfully dispossessed from an immovable property. Rather it points to the fact that the plaintiff has voluntarily handed over the possession of the suit property to the defendant no. 2.
47. Although the defendants have chosen not to lead any evidence in the present suit, the same is of no benefit to the plaintiff as he has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him to show that he has been wrongfully dispossessed from the property in question.
CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.26/27
48. Accordingly, I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has been wrongfully dispossessed from the suit property. The issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff.
Relief.
49. That in view of the aforementioned conclusions and reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
JITEN Digitally signed
by JITEN MEHRA
MEHRA Date: 2025.08.02
16:47:43 +0530
Announced in the open court (JITEN MEHRA)
on 02.08.2025 DJ-10/Central/THC
Delhi.
CS DJ No.2154/22 Page No.27/27