Delhi District Court
Jasbir Singh Loyal vs ) Naveen Jain on 31 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA THAKRAN
CIVIL JUDGE-II, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURT
CS No. 26759/16
CNR No. DLSW03-000176-2012.
IN RE:
Jasbir Singh Loyal
S/o Late Sh. Joginder Singh Loyal,
R/o: II/40/14, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-10. .....Plaintiff
Vs.
1) Naveen Jain
S/o Late Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain,
R/o: II/40/22-23, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-10.
2) Dinesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai,
R/o: WZ-1025, Street 14, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-45.
3) Jitender Bhatt
S/o Not known,
R/o: II/40/01, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-10.
4) Reena
W/o Sh. Jitender Bhatt,
R/o: II/40/01, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-10. .....Defendants
Suit No. 26759/16
Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.1/53
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, DECREE OF POSSESSION,
RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT, DAMAGES AND
MESNE PROFITS
Date of Institution : 22.02.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 09.12.2022.
Date of judgment : 31.01.2023.
Final Judgment : Decreed.
JUDGMENT
1.The brief facts of the present case as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff inducted the defendant No. 1 as tenant in respect of property No. II/40/1, Dalip Singh Block, Sadar Bazar Delhi Cantt (hereinafter referred to as suit property) consisting of two rooms, one covered courtyard with toilet, at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500/- per month exclusive of water, electricity and maintenance charges vide written agreement dated 11.03.2011. Site plan annexed. It is mentioned that as per Clause 10 of the Agreement the tenancy was terminable by either party by giving one month notice to each other, however, since the rent agreement was not registered, the tenancy as per the law is a monthly tenancy terminable by 15 days notice. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff sent a notice dated 09.01.2022 to the defendant No. 1 by courier and registered AD cover which notice stood delivered to the defendant No. 1 on or about 12.01.2012, which notice remained un-replied and un- complied till date, thereafter, the plaintiff instituted the present case before this court for the recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits against the defendant No. 1 only. Further mentioned that after receiving the summons of the case, Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.2/53 defendant No. 1 in his written statement dated 08.06.2012 took a frivolous and a false stand that he is not in possession of the suit property as he has handed over it to some Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev on 06.02.2011 in front of the plaintiff, upon receiving a legal notice dated 25.11.2011 from Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev in dasti. Defendant No. 1 placed reliance upon some forged and fabricated documents which bears no signatures of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement dated 08.06.2012, also mentioned that the suit property has been re-let to somebody in the month of December, 2011 by one Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev, but he has not disclosed the actual fact that the suit property is still under his occupation and control, and just to evade ejectment defendant No. 1 in a clandestine manner and in collusion with Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev and defendant No. 1's cousin brother Mr. Dinesh Kumar i.e. defendant No. 2, falsely prepared an unregistered, not properly stamped and fabricated rent agreement dated 07.06.2012. The contents of the said rent agreement are itself under suspicion. Further mentioned that defendant No. 2 (Mr. Dinesh Kumar) is a cousin brother of defendant No. 1 (who is not in possession of the suit property), whereas defendant No. 3 (Mr. Jitender Bhatt) is an employee of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 4 (Ms. Reena) is wife of defendant No. 3. It is further mentioned that at present defendant No. 3 & 4 are in possession of the suit property who are residing there at the behest of defendant No. 1 or as licensees of defendant No. 1 namely Mr. Naveen Jain. A video recorded from the cellphone of plaintiff depicting defendant No. 4 and her admissions to be staying/residing in the suit property at the behest of Mr.Naveen Jain i.e. defendant No. 1 and Mr. Pawan Jain (defendant No.1's father) is under the control and possession of Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.3/53 plaintiff, which he shall produce before the court at an appropriate/subsequent stage. Moreover, videographs depicting defendant No. 3 i.e. Mr. Jitender Bhatt, working as an employee/mobile mechanic with defendant No. 1 in his showroom/workplace M/s Dieno World (Mobile Selling and Repairing Shop) situated at WZ-192A, Main Road Palam Colony, Opp. Wine Shop, New Delhi-45 is also under the control and possession of plaintiff, which he shall produce before this court at an appropriate/subsequent stage. It is further mentioned that it is an undisputed fact that on 09.02.2017, at the suit property only, a quarrel took place between plaintiff, defendant No. 1, his father i.e. Late Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain and defendant No. 3 threw hands on the plaintiff and an employee of TPDDL named as Raju Yadav on the very same day, due to which a complaint case was registered before the concerned police station of Delhi Cantt under Section 323 of IPC vide Diary No. 26A dated 09.02.2017. It is further mentioned that after the incident of 09.02.2017, defendant No. 1 i.e. Mr. Naveen Jain is providing electricity in the suit property for the user of defendant No. 3 & 4 from the electric meter of the suit property. Further mentioned that defendant No. 1 is a dishonest and unscrupulous person who has no respect for the law and order, and due to his covetous motive over the suit property, he has played contricks with this court and in collusion with Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev and the other unscrupulous defendants i.e. defendant No. 2, 3 & 4. Further mentioned that the defendant No. 1 has paid Rs. 3 Lakhs as Security to the plaintiff towards the suit property, which should be adjusted towards the arrears of rent and damages caused by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff qua the suit property. Defendant No. 1 has also not paid the rent for the month from 11.12.2011 to Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.4/53 10.02.2012 amounting to Rs. 13,000/- which amount is still recoverable from the defendant No. 1. Further mentioned that as the defendant No. 1 is an unauthorized occupant in respect of the suit premises after 10.02.2012, or in any case after 12.02.2012, and as such he is liable to pay penalty/damages and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per day as agreed between the parties vide agreement dated 11.03.2011 and hence a sum of Rs. 9,000/- are recoverable from the defendant No. 1 as damages and mesne profits from 12.01.2012 to the date of filing of the present suit. It is mentioned that the plaintiff shall also be awarded damages and mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC, at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per day or at the rate at which this court may deem fit, pendente-lite and future till the defendants actually handover the physical vacant possession of the suit property to him. The plaintiff undertakes to pay the deficient court fee at the time of passing of final decree. Hence on this cause of action the present suit seeking ejectment, decree of possession, recovery of arrears of rent damages and mesne profits is filed.
2.On service of summons the defendants has appeared and has filed their separate written statements. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 it is mentioned that the present suit is not maintainable as there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 as there is no relationship of landlord tenant existing between the parties. It is mentioned that defendant received a notice dated 25.01.2011 from another co- owner Smt. Paramjeet Kaur through her attorney Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev to vacate and handover the tenanted premises being joint property. Since the tenanted premises was joint property, therefore, on receipt of notice from another co-owner, the matter Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.5/53 was brought to the notice of plaintiff and with consent and knowledge of plaintiff the tenanted premises was vacated and handed over to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev in presence of the plaintiff and keys were handed over on 06.12.2011. The plaintiff promised to refund the security amount of Rs. 3 lakhs within three months, handing over/taking over documents were also executed i.e. handing over/taking over certificate, receipt-cum- acknowledgment dated 06.12.2011, copies of notice and certificate and receipt are annexed. It is averred that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing the material facts from the court as it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff that the possession has been handed over to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev and after about 6-7 months same has been re-let to defendant No. 2 vide rent agreement dated 07.06.2012. It is mentioned that after 06.12.2011 the defendant No. 1 is neither the tenant nor in possession of the tenanted premises nor having any concern with the same and the above facts were concealed by the plaintiff when the suit was filed in the year 2012. Also plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as neither he is authorized by all the co-owners nor karta or manager of HUF. Also the rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 is neither a registered document nor admissible in evidence without payment of ten times penalty as such the document is illegal not enforceable by law and liable to be impounded and sent to collector of stamps to validate the same. Also plaint is not properly verified or supported with an affidavit. The suit of the plaintiff is also not maintainable, the plaint discloses that defendant No. 2 was inducted by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev as attorney of co-owner Ms. Paramjeet Kaur vide rent agreement dated 07.06.2012 for residential purposes for himself and his Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.6/53 employee and when the defendant closed his business and the defendant No. 3 has left the employment of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 surrendered his tenancy to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev on 31.08.2018. Further mentioned that Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev has re-let the suit property to defendant No. 3 in his individual capacity as tenant vide rent agreement dated 01.09.2019 for residential purpose for himself and his wife who are in possession of the property as lawful tenant paying rent regularly to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev. It is stated that defendant No. 2 or defendant No. 3 & 4 never remained in possession of the suit property as licensee of defendant No. 1 or at behest of defendant No. 1 and therefore he is not liable for any acts and conduct of defendant No. 2 to 4. It is averred that M/s Jain Mobile Solution (Dieno World) at Shop No. WZ-192, Main Road, Palam Colony, New Delhi (mobile selling and repair shop) was the business of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain (father of defendant No. 1) and after his death the same is closed and sold out and presently Mr. Jitender Kumar Ahlawat is running the said shop and not defendant No. 1. It is denied that defendant No. 3 was employee of defendant No. 1. As to incident dated 09.02.2017 it is mentioned that plaintiff intended to disconnect the electricity connection of the suit property which was disconnected by BSES staff and on the said date defendant No. 3 gathered on the spot and on seeing the crowd the father of defendant No. 1 who is also residing in the same building also went to see what is going on, there the plaintiff pushed his father Sh. P.K. Jain and in order to save his father defendant No. 1 came and intervened and quarrel took place with the BSES staff also, then matter was reported to police but was resolved between the parties in the police station. Further mentioned that father of defendant No. Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.7/53 1 has expired on 04.08.2018. It is averred that plaintiff has bribed th BSES staff to disconnect the electricity connection in order to evict defendant No. 2 & 3, Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev is now supplying electricity to the tenanted premises occupied by defendant No. 3 & 4 through a sub-meter. Further he has already handed over the possession of the suit property on 06.12.2011 and there are no arrears of rent, also there is no question of payment of rent for the period 11.12.2011 to 10.02.2012 amounting Rs. 13,000/- to the plaintiff and therefore with this he has prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
3. Defendant No. 2 in his written statement has mentioned that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and him as such there is no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. He was inducted as a tenant on 07.06.2012 by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev, SPA of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur w/o of Late Sh. Iqbal Singh being one of the co-owner of the suit property vide rent agreement for residential purpose for self and his employee and since his employee has left the employment and the premises was no longer required it was surrendered on 31.08.2018 to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev vide handing over/taking over possession letter dated 31.08.2018 and there were no dues/arrears of rent towards Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev. It is averred that suit is bad for misjoinder/non-joinder of necessary parties and he is not having any concern with the suit property with effect from 31.08.2018. Further mentioned that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and the plaint is not properly verified or supported with an affidavit. Remaining avertments are denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.
Suit No. 26759/16Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.8/53
4.Defendant No. 3 & 4 in their written statement has mentioned that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 as such there is no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. He was inducted as a tenant on 01.09.2018 by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev, SPA of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur w/o of Late Sh. Iqbal Singh being one of the co-owner of the suit property vide rent agreement for residential purpose for his family. He had paid advance rent of Rs. 10,000/- vide rent receipt No. 1 dated 01.09.2018. Further mentioned that defendant No. 4 is legally wedded wife of defendant No. 3 and there is no cause of action against them in favour of the plaintiff. They are not even necessary or proper party in the present suit. It is averred that suit is bad for misjoinder/non-joinder of necessary parties and he is not having any concern with the plaintiff. Further mentioned that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and the plaint is not properly verified or supported with an affidavit. Remaining avertments are denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.
5.On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed, which are:-
I) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession against the defendants with respect to the suit property? OPP. III) Whether the defendant no.1 had already handed over the possession of the suit property with the consent of the plaintiff to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev? OPD-1.
IV) Whether the defendant no.2 was inducted in the suit property by Sh. Mahinder Singh Jagdev, SPA of Smt. Parameet Kaur as pleaded by defendant no.2?OPD-2.Suit No. 26759/16
Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.9/53 V) Whether the defendant no.3 and 4 were subsequently inducted in the suit property as a tenant by Sh. Mahinder Singh Jagdev? OPD- 3 and 4.
VI) Whether the defendant no.2,3 and 4 were the licensees of defendant no.1 and whether they were inducted in the suit property illegally by the defendant no.1 as averred in the plaint? OPP. VII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.13,000/- against the defendant no.1 on account of arrears of rent? OPP. VIII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.9000/- towards damages and mesne profits @ Rs.1000/- per day from 12.2.2012 till the date of filing of the present suit against the defendants? OPP.
IX) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages against the defendants @ Rs.1000/- per day from the date of filing of suit till the date the defendants hand over the actual vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, as prayed for? OPP. X) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit?OPP. XI) Relief.
6.In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined four witnesses including himself as PW-1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A & B and has relied upon certain documents i.e. Copy of rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) (objected to as the same is not admissible being unregistered and insufficient stamp duty), Site plan Ex. PW-1/2 (objected to on mode of proof as it is not signed by the plaintiff or prepared by the plaintiff), Certified copy of judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011 Ex. PW-1/3 (running into five pages) (objected to mode of proof and relevancy), Copy of legal notice is marked as Mark X (whereas the same has been Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.10/53 mentioned in his evidence affidavit as Ex. PW-1/4), Postal receipt and courier receipt are Ex. PW-1/5 and Ex. PW-1/6 respectively. During his cross-examination denied that the suit property is a joint property, however, he said that he is the landlord/owner of the suit property. Asked that 'Is he karta of HUF Dalip Singh & Sons' to which witness stated that he is the landlord of Dalip Singh building and he is the only tax payee of Dalip Singh Building. There is no difference between landlord and owner according to him. There are no LRs of Dalip Singh alive, volunteered he is the successor in interest and current LR of Late Sh. Dalip Singh. Admitted that Dalip Singh had 6 sons namely Late Sh. Joginder Singh Loyal, Late Major Kartar Singh Loyal, Late Sh. Inder Jeet Loyal, Late Sh. Amerjeet Singh Loyal, Late Sh. Mangal Singh Loyal and Late Sh. Paramjeet Singh Loyal. Admitted that all the six brother had expired. Admitted that the LRs of Late Sh. Amerjeet Singh, Late Sh. Paramjeet Singh and Late Sh. Kartar Singh are alive, volunteered they do not have any share in suit property. Denied that LRs of Late Sh. Amerjeet Singh, Late Sh. Paramjeet Singh and Late Sh. Kartar Singh are co-sharers/co-owners of the suit property. Asked that 'did you take any permission from any of the LRs of Late Sh. Amerjeet Singh, Late Sh. Paramjeet Singh and Late Sh. Kartar Singh to file the present suit' to which witness stated that it was not required because he is the landlord/owner of the suit property. The rent agreement Ex. PW-1/1 is not registered document. He do not know whether the stamp duty paid on rent agreement is sufficient or not, volunteered he is ready to pay deficient stamp duty, if any. Asked that 'have you properly valued the present suit and paid sufficent court fees on the reliefs claimed by you' to which witness stated that as advised by his earlier Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.11/53 counsel, he had paid the court fee in accordance, volunteered he is ready to pay the deficient court fee, if any, be considered by the court after holding an inquiry. Admitted that defendant has filed written statement in the present suit. Admitted that he has filed the replication to the WS of defendant. Admitted that he has not taken any action to rectify the objections in the written statement of defendant. Admitted that he has not prepared the site plan Ex. PW- 1/2. Also admitted that site plan Ex. PW-1/2 does not bear his signature. Denied that he was not present at the time of handing over the suit premises on 06.12.2011 by the defendant, volunteered defendant is still in possession of the suit premises. Denied that when legal notice dated 09.01.2012 was sent he was having knowledge that the suit property has been vacated, volunteered the defendant is still in possession of the suit property. Denied that the defendant did not accept the legal notice dated 09.01.2012 willfully. Admitted that defendant never resided in tenanted premises and he was residing with his father. Denied that he had deliberately mis sent the legal notice dated 09.01.2012 with a view that the same would not be served to the defendant and he shall succeed in obtaining ex-parte proceedings. Denied that since 06.12.2011 there is no landlord or tenant relationship between him and the defendant. Denied that at the time of filing of the present suit, neither there was landlord and tenant relationship nor the defendant was in possession of the suit premises. Denied that since there was no landlord and tenant relationship the defendant is not liable to pay Rs. 13,000/- as arrears of rent to him, volunteered the defendant is still in possession of the suit property. Denied that Smt. Paramjeet Kaur W/o Late Sh. Iqbal Singh daughter-in-law of Late Sh. Amerjeet Singh is also a co-owner of the suit property. Denied that suit Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.12/53 premises was vacated on 06.12.2011, volunteered the defendant is still in possession of the suit property and he had filed the present suit on 21.02.2012. Denied that on 21.02.2012 or till today the defendant was not in possession of the suit property, volunteered the defendant is still in possession of the suit property. Asked that 'is it correct to suggest that at your instance and with your consent the suit property was vacated and handed over to co-owner with reducing the document in written in your presence and in the presence of other witnesses' to which witness stated that it is wrong because he has taken the possession of the suit property by the court of law after paying Rs. 4 Lakhs to the earlier tenant in the suit premises. The document as to proof is Ex. PW-1/3. Denied that the defendant is not liable to pay the damages as well as mesne profit of Rs. 9,000/- + Rs. 1,000/- per day with effect from 12.02.2012 to 21.02.2012. Denied that there is no cause of action in the present suit. Admitted that he has not refunded Rs. 3 Lakhs as security amount to the defendant and he is willing to refund the same if the defendant hand overs the possession of the suit property to him only. He do not know who is Mahender Singh Jagdev and denied that he let out the suit property to some other person after it was vacated on 06.12.2011 at the instance of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, volunteered that the defendant is still in possession of the suit property and he was not in Delhi on 06.12.2011 because he was in Bombay. Admitted that he has not mentioned this fact neither in his plaint nor in his replication nor in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW- 1/A. Denied deposing falsely.
He has tendered his additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A1 bearing his signature at points A to A5 and has relied upon the documents already exhibited i.e. Copy of rent agreement Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.13/53 dated 11.03.2021 Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR), Site plan Ex. PW-1/2, Certified copy of judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011 Ex. PW- 1/3 (running into 5 pages), postal receipt and courier receipt are Ex. PW-1/5 and Ex. PW-1/6 respectively. During his cross-examination he admits that he had got made the site plan, however, he forgot to sign on the site plan. Denied that he is not the individual owner of the suit property. Asked that 'can you produce any document to show your individual title over the suit property' to which witness stated that yes he can produce the title document as he got the suit property vacated from the court of law by paying Rs. 4 Lakhs to the erstwhile tenant of the suit property. Again asked that 'have you produce the abovesaid documents on judicial record' to which witness stated that yes he had filed the same before the court. Again asked that 'have you paid Rs. 4 Lakhs from your personal account or from joint family account' to which witness stated that he had paid from his individual account and in cash. Further asked that 'can you produce the cash receipt in this case' to which witness stated that no I can not produce the cash receipt, volunteered no cash receipt was generated since the payment was made in front of the court to the erstwhile tenant. Denied that at the time of compromise of the former suit, the property was joint property. Barring three shops and the flats made above, said shops, the entire property devolved into my share in the partition suit. He do not remember whether he had filed the partition order. He could not tell the exact date and month or the said partition order but the same was passed in the year 2008. He is not aware whether the said order was dated 08.05.2008. He do not remember how may defendants were there in that suit since it has been decided long back as per his knowledge he was defendant No. 1(a) in the said suit. Denied that Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.14/53 in partition order, no share was assigned to him. Admitted that no share was assigned to other defendants since they all have been proceeded ex-parte. The said partition suit has not been challenged till date as per his knowledge because only a bogus application was filed. Admitted that the application in respect to the order dated 05.08.2008, is pending in the court of Sh. Ajay Garg, Ld. ADJ, New Delhi and the notice of the same has been received by him. He do not remember that the said application is pending and the next date of hearing in the matter is 30.10.2021. Denied that he is not the absolute owner of the suit property, volunteered he had repeatedly mentioned that he is the absolute owner of the suit property. Admitted that he has filed the property tax in respect of the tenanted premises. As per his knowledge, he had filed the property tax receipts of the suit property, if not filed then he would file the same before the court. He had deposited the property tax qua the suit property since 2007 approximately and he had also filed the same recently. Denied that property bearing No. II/40/1 is the part of the joint property and it is not his individual property. Asked that 'you are the co-owner of the tenanted premises as such you cannot file the instant suit in absolute owner's capacity' to which witness stated that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and thus filed the suit. He could not tell the exact date on what date the partition suit was closed. But he do remember that it was done in year 2008. Denied that in the partition suit no preliminary or final decree has been passed till date. He do not remember on what date the preliminary decree or the final decree was passed in the said suit. He can produce the compromise decree of the said suit whenever directed. Denied that he do not have either the preliminary decree or final decree. Mangal Singh was the brother of late Sh. Joginder Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.15/53 Singh Loyal i.e. his father. Admitted that the entire remaining property, except three shops and three flats over it, has devolved upon his share as per the compromise decree. Denied that nothing as such is written in the compromise order. Admitted that Kuldeep Singh Loyal is also one of co-owner of Dilip Singh Building. Denied that the defendant has handed over the suit property to one Mahender Singh Jagdev on 06.12.2011 being the attorney of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, volunteered the defendant is still in occupation of the suit property. Denied that the defendant no. 1 is not in possession of the suit property w.e.f. 06.12.2011, volunteered the defendant no. 1 is still in the possession and occupation of the suit property as he regularly see him, his wife and his mother in the suit property, moreover, he has telephonic and CCTV recordings to substantiate this fact. Denied that since defendant no. 1 was not in possession of the suit property, defendant no. 2, 3 and 4 were impleaded. At present, defendant no. 2 is not in possession of the suit property but earlier he was there at the behest of defendant no.
1. Denied that Mahender Kumar Jagdev inducted Mr. Dinesh Kumar in the tenanted premises vide rent agreement dated 06.07.2012 and vacated the same on 21.08.2018 and handed over the possession to Mahender Kumar Jagdev. Denied that the suit premises were let out by Mahender Kumar Jagdev i.e. defendant no. 3 on 01.09.2018 in his individual capacity. Admitted that the defendant no. 3 and 4 are in possession of suit property at the behest of defendant no. 1. Denied that neither defendant no. 2 nor the defendant no. 3 are the employees of defendant no. 1. Admitted that the defendant no. 4 being the legally wedded wife of the defendant no. 3 is residing at the suit premises. Denied that the electricity connection installed in the suit premises was in the name of Mr. Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.16/53 Mahender Singh Jagdev. The electricity connection was disconnected in the year 2017 as it was in the name of erstwhile tenant. The name of the erstwhile tenant was Nihali Devi and upon her demise, her legal heirs Mukesh and others were brought on record. The erstwhile tenants Mukesh and others vacated the suit premises in the year 2011 before the court of Sh. K. Venugopal by virtue of a compromise order. He do not know who is the proprietor of M/s Jain Mobile Solutions carried out by Late Sh. P. K. Jain. Admitted that late Sh. P. K. Jain has expired. He is not aware whether after the death of the proprietor concerned of the P. K. Jain has been sold to Sh. Jitender Ahlawat. He do not know whether Jitnder Kumar Ahlawat is the proprietor of M/s Dieno World and running the said shop. Denied that a complaint was resolved at PS Delhi Cantt., which occasioned on 09.02.2017 concerning electric connection of suit property, volunteered the complaint is still pending. Denied that meter was disconnected as Mahender Singh Jagdev was supplying the electricity to defendant no. 3 and 4 through this meter. Admitted that he has not refunded a sum of Rs. 3 lacs to the defendant no. 1 which has been taken by him as security concerning tenancy of suit premises, in fact, the defendant no. 1 has himself never asked for the same till date. Admitted that as on date, he is willing to pay the abovestated amount. Denied that defendant no. 1 never supplied the electricity to defendant no. 3 and
4. Admitted that defendant no. 1 is residing in premises 2/40/22-23 which was under the tenancy of late Sh. P. K. Jain. Admitted that Mahender Singh Jagdev is the real brother of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur w/o Late Sh. Iqbal Singh who was son of Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh who was the co-owner of the joint property. Denied that defendant no. 1 has vacated the suit premises but admitted that there was due Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.17/53 amount on him. Denied that the defendant no. 1 is not liable to pay the rent for the period 11.12.2011 to 10.02.2012 amounting to Rs. 13,000/- nor he is liable to pay damages @ 1000/- per day or to pay Rs. 9,000/- till filing of the present suit. Denied that there was no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. It is not in his knowledge that Dinesh Kumar paid any rent for the period 07.06.2012 to 31.08.2018 to one Mahender Singh Jagdev who has executed alleged rent agreement dated 07.06.2012 in his favour. Admitted that Mahender Singh Jagdev has been examined by the Hon'ble Court in this matter only. Denied that the said rent agreement has been proved in examination of Mahender Singh Jagdev. He do not know whether defendant no. 3 is tenant of Mahender Singh Jagdev or he is paying rent to him nor do he know that the Mahender Singh Jagdev has executed rent agreement in his favour on dated 01.09.2018. He do not know whether the Jitender was the employee of Dinesh Kumar or not. He do not know whether the defendant no. 2 has taken the suit premises on rent for the benefit of defendant no. 3 who was his employee. He do not know that when Dinesh Kumar has closed his business or vacated the suit premises on 21.08.2018 and handed over the same to Mahender Singh Jagdev. Denied that the defendant no. 2, 3 and 4 were never the licencees of defendant no. 1. Admitted that the rent agreement executed between him and defendant no. 1 was executed on 100 rupees stamp paper. Denied that he has evaded the stamp duty, volunteered as per his knowledge he has paid appropriate stamp duty and willing to pay, if it is deficient. Denied that he has not paid the proper stamp duty on the rent agreement and appropriate court fees on the suit. Denied that because of grudges with Mahender Singh Jagdev and his sister Paramjeet Kaur, Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.18/53 he has filed the present suit before this court of law. Denied deposing falsely.
ii) PW-2 is Ms. Geetanjali Malik, Record Keeper from Record Room Sessions (South West), Dwarka Court, New Delhi. She has brought the summoned record pertaining to civil suit No. 51/2010, titled as Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Mukesh & Ors. Decided by Sh. K. Venugopal, the then Ld. ADJ, Dwarka Courts on 17.03.2011 vide Goshwara No. 260/D. Documents exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3 bearing the content of the same record which she has brought today and nothing has been distorted. The address of the suit property matches with the record. She has not been cross-examined.
iii) PW-3 is Sh. Bidyadhar Swain and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-3/A and bears his signatures at point A, B and C. During his cross-examination stated that he has not brought his rent agreement with the plaintiff but he can produce the same if required by the court. The said rent agreement was executed around 3 years back. The plaintiff had issued rent receipts twice and thereafter he had not collected/claimed any rent receipts from the plaintiff. He do not remember the date of execution of rent agreement with the plaintiff. He has been tenant of the plaintiff since 2006 in the same premise. He had not mentioned in his evidence affidavit that he has been tenant of the plaintiff number of times. The plaintiff has been known to him since 2006 when he was inducted as a tenant. At present, he is paying the monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/-. He is a teacher by profession and takes private tuition. He has not filed the Income Tax Return (ITR) for the last years but he had filed the ITR two years back. He has mentioned his monthly rent in his ITR. He can produce the copy of his ITR. He was not the party in the suit titled as Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.19/53 Ors. He is not aware about the details of the family members of Dilip Singh who was grandfather of the plaintiff. He do not remember the year of death of the father of the plaintiff. However, he was present as a tenant at the time of the death of his father. Admitted that he is one of the witness of the written rent agreement dated 11.03.2011. He do not remember the amount of stamp paper on which the agreement was written. He do not remember as to how many signatures were made by Jasbir Singh Loyal at the time of execution of rent agreement. The aforesaid rent agreement was executed at Karan Document Centre, Sector-12, Dwarka. At the time of execution of the agreement, he alongwith the Master Ji, Jasbir, Naveen Jain and Pawan Jain were present. Asked that 'can you tell from where the stamp paper was purchased'. (Court observation: The witness was attesting witness of the agreement and was not supposed to know about the fact asked and hence, the same is not relevant).
At the time of execution, he and Master Ji had signed as attesting witness. He do not remained who else had signed the rent agreement. Admitted that he had not gone to office of Notary Public or Registrar. He had never collected rent on behalf of the plaintiff from the defendant. He do not know about the arrears of the rent but it was fixed Rs. 6,500/- per month. The defendant has not vacated the said premises till date. Denied that the defendant had already vacated the suit premise on 06.12.2011 and handed over the same to Smt. Paramjit Kaur in the presence of the plaintiff. He do not know whether the defendant had handed over the suit property to Mahender Singh Jagdev being attorney of Smt. Paramjit Kaur who was the co-owner of the property. Denied that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.20/53 defendant after 06.12.2011. Denied that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff and he is deposing falsely at the behest of plaintiff. He has tendered his additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A which bears his signature at point A & B. During cross- examination stated that he is tenant in Dalip Singh building since 2004. He knows most of the residents/occupants of Dalip Singh building. His tenancy agreement was in written. In respect to this case he is conversant with the facts that Jasbir Singh Loyal had tenanted the suit property i.e. II/40/1 to defendant No. 1 Naveen Jain in the year 2011 having been vacated from the erstwhile tenant Mr. Mukesh in the year 2011 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500/- only. Rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 executed between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had been prepared, executed and signed in Dwarka Sector-12 before a Notary office. The rent agreement had been executed at or about 11 am to 12 noon. morning. At the time of execution the said rent agreement he, Jasbir Singh Loyal, Naveen Jain and another attesting witness Mohd. Ali were present. Mohd. Ali had expired recently. The abovesaid, he has mentioned in his affidavit Ex. PW-2/A as are also apparent in the rent agreement dated 11.03.2011. He do not know whether the time has been mentioned in the rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 or not. He has read the contents of the rent agreement. He do not know the specific time period of default by defendant No. 1 in paying the rent to the plaintiff, however, the same had been defaulted after 2-3 months of the execution of the rent agreement. The defendant No. 1 had inducted defendant NO. 3 & 4 in the suit property in order to evade his ejectment and he said that defendant No. 3 & 4 are staying in the suit property at the behest of defendant No. 1 who often visits the suit property. Denied that defendant No. 3 is tenant of Mahender Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.21/53 Singh Jagdev, attorney of Paramjeet Kaur, is staying with his wife i.e. defendant No. 4 in the suit property in his individual capacity. The rent agreement was executed in the year 2011, hence he could not recall the time period for which it has been prepared and executed. He has signed after seeing the rent agreement dated 11.03.2011. The rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 might have been executed on the stamp value of Rs. 50 approximately. He do not remember in how many pages the rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 had been prepared. The rent agreement had been registered. Denied that defendant No. 1 had handed over the possession of suit property to Paramjeet Kaur, volunteered as per his knowledge Jasbir Loyal is the sole owner of the suit property and Dalip Singh building. He has seen the documents pertaining to ownership of plaintiff. He had seen house tax receipts and water tax receipts in the name of the plaintiff. He had seen house tax receipts and water tax receipts pertaining to the year 2011 and the latest one. It is not in his knowledge that on 07.06.2012 the tenanted premises was let out to defendant No. 2 for his employee defendant No. 3. Denied that on 21.08.2018 the defendant No. 2 had handed over the tenanted premises to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev. Denied that on 01.09.2018 the tenanted premises was let out to defendant No. 3 in his individual capacity by Mahender Singh Jagdev, attorney of Paramjeet Kaur. Admitted that defendant No. 4 being wife of defendant No. 3 is residing in suit premises. Denied that defendant No. 1 has no concern with the suit premises, volunteered he is also still residing there. He do not know whether the suit property was partitioned or not. Denied deposing falsely at the instance of plaintiff.
Suit No. 26759/16Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.22/53
iv) PW-4 is Mohd. Ali. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-4/A and bears his signatures at point A, B & C. During cross-examination stated that he has been tenant in the said premises since 2004, two rent agreement has been executed with the plaintiff since 2004. He do not remember the date and year when the first agreement was executed. The time or place was not fixed in the rent agreement. His rent agreement was executed with the plaintiff. He do not know whether the said property has been partitioned between the co-owners or not. He is not able to recall the year when the second rent agreement was executed with him and it was for 5 years. The rent agreement was not got registered. He is paying the monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- to the plaintiff. He do not remember who had prepared his affidavit Ex. PW-4/A. The stamp on the affidavit Ex. PW-4/A was not affixed in his presence. The premise in which Naveen Jain is residing at the Ist Floor and his shop is at the ground floor on the same building. Denied that the defendant had already vacated the suit premis on 06.12.2011. He could not tell whether the defendant had handed over the suit property to the Mahender Singh Jagdev being attorney of Smt. Paramjit Kaur who was the co-owner of the property. He could not say whether Mahender Singh used to visit said premise. Denied that Naveen Jain is not residing in the suit premises even today. Denied that at present, the suit premises is in the possession of the tenant of Mahender Singh Jagdev. He could not tell about the arrears of the rent towards the defendant. Denied that he has filed the false affidavit in his evidence at the instance of the plaintiff and he is deposing falsely at the behest of plaintiff.
7.In order to rebut the case of plaintiff, defendants has examined four witnesses. DW-1 is defendant No. 1 and he has tendered his Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.23/53 evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A bearing his signature at points A and B and has relied upon the following documents i.e. Legal Notice dated 25.11.2011 Ex. DW-1/1, Handing over and taking over certificate dated 06.12.2011 Ex. DW-1/2 and receipt dated 06.12.2011 Ex. DW-1/3. During cross-examination stated that he resides at his address mentioned in the evidence affidavit alongwith his father, mother and wife and it is a rented premises, landlord thereof is Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev and his father is the main tenant in this property and he does not have any right, title, interest in the property. He has occupied three rooms in this property. He is a mobile technician and his shop is at Palam. He also had a rented shop which he had vacated 4 months earlier. He is sitting and doing business with his father Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain in his rented shop at Palam. He does not have any property in the territory of India. Stated that he knows plaintiff Jasbir Loyal very well. He does not either visit plaintiff or meet him, volunteered he used to meet him prior to taking the suit property on rent, thereafter, he never met him or visited him. He do not know his mobile number or any telephone number. The relations between him and plaintiff are not cordial. Admitted that plaintiff was his landlord in regard to the suit property. Document Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) bears his signature, rent agreement was made on 11.03.2011. He do not remember who else had signed the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/1. He had taken the suit property for residential purpose which comprised two rooms, kitchen, washroom, toilet and courtyard, however, he does not know the actual size thereof. He used to pay rent to plaintiff via cheque only. Admitted that his wife Sushila Jain (earlier Sushila Ahlawat) paid rent to the plaintiff at his instructions and the said cheques never got dishonored. Plaintiff regularly used to visit him Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.24/53 and he had word with him in regard to taking suit property on rent. He has acknowledged Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev at the time of delivering notice to them, that he had paid Rs. 3 Lakhs to the plaintiff as security deposit in regard to suit property. Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev handed over the aforesaid notice by hand. He had demanded Rs. 3 Lakhs from Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev at the time of service of notice on him. Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev assured him that he will speak to the plaintiff in this context and the amount shall be refunded to him. Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev initiated from his end and spoke to the plaintiff that Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev issued him a legal notice. He has not verified or seen the ownership documents on his particular day in regard to suit property. Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev claimed himself to be co-owner of the suit property being brother of wife of one of plaintiff's cousin brother. He met plaintiff on 26.11.2011 approximately at 12:00 noon, at his residence in context to the legal notice served by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev. Plaintiff assured him that he will refund the security deposit at the time of vacating the suit premises to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev. He did not receive Rs. 3 Lakhs at the time of vacating the suit premises. He has not filed any suit in respect of the refund/recovery of Rs. 3 Lakhs. Then DW-1 was confronted with two videos, after watching the same he admitted the factum of the incident recorded in the said videos, however, he stated that the videos being played shows the incident wherein his father is saying and doing certain things. Two CDs are marked as Ex. DW-1/PY and Ex. DW-1/PZ and transcript thereof is Ex. DW-1/PZZ. Then the witness was confronted with the police complaint and he admitted the existence of the said document and same is marked as Mark PX. After the amendment, DW-1 was again examined and he tendered Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.25/53 his additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/AA bearing my signature at point A & B. During cross-examination admitted that he was already been cross-examined in this matter on 26.10.2017. Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) bears his signatures on all the three pages. The rent agreement between him and Jasbir Singh Loyal has been duly executed but he cannot recall the date on which it has been executed. He had received the legal notice regarding vacation of the suit property from Mahinder Singh Jagdev by hand on 25.11.2011. He had vacated the suit property on 06.12.2011 and handed over the same to Mahinder Singh Jagdev in the presence of Jasbir Loyal (plaintiff herein), his father Late Sh. Pawan Jain, Bharat Bhusan and there was one other person also but he do not remember his name. He do know the defendant no. 3 and 4 namely Mr. Jitender Bhatt and his wife namely Smt. Reena in the instant suit. Defendant no. 3 was a mobile repairing trainee under him at M/s Dieno World situated at WZ-192, main road Palam Colony, New Delhi-45 and completed his 3 months training. Defendant no. 3 is still in his touch however he do not frequently meet him. Defendant no. 2 is his cousin brother. The dispute dated 09.02.2017 pertains to the suit property under the occupation of Mr. Jitender Bhatt which is mentioned in his additional evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/AA. The electricity being supplied in the suit property is from the electric connection of the property which is under tenancy and occupied by him i.e. property No. 2/40/22-23, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. Admitted that plaintiff is the co-owner of the property which is under his tenancy. Again said plaintiff is co-owner of the suit property and he is not aware whether plaintiff is co-owner of the property presently under his tenancy. Admitted that his wife namely Smt. Sushila Ahlawat Jain also made an attempt to tender Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.26/53 rent of the suit property to the plaintiff. DW-1 was confronted with the document i.e. cheque dated 01.06.2011 and return memo dated 02.06.2011 and asked whether on his behalf his wife had tendered a cheque towards the payment of rent and it got dishonored and is it the same cheque issued by his wife. The witness has answered - yes, further his wife had issued the said cheque and the same got dishonored. Accordingly, the said cheque is exhibited as Ex. DW- 1/P1 and Ex. DW-1/P2. Then he was asked a question that 'will you vacate the property occupied by you and presently in your tenancy if in future you come to know that there is other co-owner of the said property and he asked you to vacate the said property?', to which he replied that 'yes, if the co-owner ask me to vacate the same.' Denied deposing falsely.
8. DW-2 is Mahender Singh Jagdev and he has tendered his evidence affidavit Ex. DW-2/A. During cross-examination stated that he owns a readymade garment factory in Gandhi Nagar. At this residence he resides with his family and his sister Paramjeet Kaur but now her sister is living in Paris, France. He knows plaintiff very well since his sister got married. He has cordial relations with the plaintiff. He has mobile number of the plaintiff but he do not remember the same. The number of the suit property is 2/40/1. He do not know the dimensions/area of the same. He had been handed over possession of one room, one kitchen and one bathroom in 2011 by Sh. Naveen Jain (DW-1). He had inspected the suit property before taking the possession of the same alongwith Sh. Jasbir Singh. He knows DW-1 very well but cannot say since when he knows him. He do not know as to who was a tenant in the suit property before DW-1. He do not have any document qua the ownership of the suit property in personal capacity or in the Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.27/53 capacity of authorized representative of his sister Paramjeet Kaur. Then DW-2 was confronted with a document, he denied the same and it is marked as Mark X1. Denied that he had given a statement before the court of Sh. Vishal Gogne in case titled as Jasbir Singh Vs. Shiv Kumar Mehta, civil suit No. 26705/16 that his sister had sold undivided share in the inherited property twice (volunteered she had sold the undivided share in part in the inherited property only once). He had never got any site plan of the suit property prepared. The suit property was never ever in possession of either his sister Paramjeet Kaur or him. His sister approached him to get the suit property vacated from the defendant in November, 2011. thereafter, he served a 30 days notice to the defendant to vacate the suit property. The defendant No. 1 never approached him to show the ownership documents pertaining to the ownership of the suit property either in his sister's name or his name. The defendant No. 1 straight away believed him that his sister Paramjeet Kaur is co- owner of the suit property. He had served each and every tenant a legal notice of the Dalip Singh building on behalf of his sister to vacate the premises to his sister Paramjeet Kaur. He do not remember whether any tenant of Dalip Singh building ever handed over possession to him on behalf of his sister or to his sister directly. He has not refunded Rs. 3 Lakhs to the defendant which was deposited by defendant No. 1 as security amount to the plaintiff (volunteered plaintiff took the responsibility to pay the same). On 06.12.2011, around 2:00 pm in the afternoon the plaintiff promised the defendant/DW-1 to return the said security amount within a short while. Defendant did not handed over the possession of the suit property directly to the plaintiff because the plaintiff asked the defendant to hand over the same to him, as it means same.
Suit No. 26759/16Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.28/53 Documents were also executed at the time of handing over the possession of the suit property. He do not know which documents were prepared at the time of handing over possession to him by the DW-1. 4 persons were present including him at the time of execution of documents and others were Bharat Bhushan, Firoz and plaintiff. All these persons have signed the handing over documents of the suit property. Presently, the suit property is in possession of some Pawan, he is his tenant. Pawan immediately took possession of the suit property since DW-1 vacated. At present, he do not remember how much rent he is charging from Pawan, volunteered it is mentioned in the rent agreement. He do not know in whose name electricity connection is installed, volunteered Pawan used to pay the electricity bill so he must be aware. He do not know whether plaintiff ever disputed his sister's ownership over the Dalip Singh building. Defendant/DW-1 has no interest in the suit property. Plaintiff has not refunded Rs. 3 Lakhs to the defendant till now and he do not know the reason thereof. DW-1 has never approached him to refund those Rs. 3 Lakhs to him, volunteered he approached him to get the amount refunded from plaintiff. His affidavit was prepared at Patiala House Court by Sh. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for DW-1. He do not remember the date when it was prepared and whether it was attested in his presence or not. Denied that he has suppressed the material facts and misled the court by falsely representing himself as a co-owner on behalf of his sister Paramjeet Kaur. Denied that his brother-in-law late Sh. Iqbal Singh Loyal has debarred/disinherited his sister Paramjeet Kaur from his share in Dalip Singh building through a final testament/WILL (his brother- in-law Iqbal Singh has executed a complete set of documents of sale including the WILL in favour of his sister during his lifetime).
Suit No. 26759/16Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.29/53 He has not brought the said documents in the court today. He can produce the documents on the NDOH. Then he was confronted with a document which was denied by him which has been marked as Mark X2. Denied that he is in collusion with defendant and few unscrupulous person and trying to grab the suit property of the plaintiff. Denied that the documents filed by the defendant Naveen Jain are afterthought and prepared after the institution of the present suit just to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Denied that Naveen Jain is still in the possession of the suit property and denied deposing falsely at behest of Naveen Jain, volunteered presently premises is under possession of Sh. Dinesh Kumar as tenant. Then he was confronted with photocopy of a document dated 07.06.2012 titled as rent agreement alongwith site plan, on his admission it is exhibited as Ex. DW-2/P1. He do not know whether the present tenant is a cousin brother of defendant or not. The suit property is a commercial cum residential property. Presently, an agent/employee/servant of Dinesh Kumar is residing in the suit property. Dinesh Kumar has not obtained any written permission from him before inducting the said agent/employee/servant in the suit property. He do not remember how much rent he has taken from the said Dinesh Kumar in context of the suit property. He used to visit the suit property frequently and also the entire property. He do not know whether only one person is living in the suit property or group of individuals. He do not know whether he has applied for tenant verification of Dinesh Kumar before Delhi Police. Whenever he visited suit property he never met his tenant Dinesh Kumar. Denied deposing falsely.
9.DW-3 is Jitender Bhatt (who is defendant No. 3 in the present case) and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-
Suit No. 26759/16Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.30/53 3/A bearing his signature at points A and B and has relied upon the following documents i.e:-
Nature of documents Exhibited as
1. Photocopy of rent agreement DW-3/DW1/1 (OSR)
dated 01.09.2018
2. Photocopy of Site plan DW-3/DW1/2 (OSR) (objected
as to mode of proof being an
illegible photocopy)
3. Photocopy of rent receipt DW-3/DW1/3 (OSR)
4. Photocopy of electricity bill DW-3/DW1/4 (OSR) dated 01.07.2019 During cross-examination stated that his permanent address is H. No. 235, Village Neemka, Shahanjahpur, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. He has not filed the photocopy of his Aadhar Card. He do not know the municipal number of the suit property however he is only paying the rent of the same as a tenant and staying there from last 9 to 10 years approximately. He is only 10th pass. He is not able to write English however he can understand the same. Admitted that he has not signed all the pages of his evidence by way of affidavit however he has signed only at the last page at point A & B. He is doing a business of e-commerce direct selling under M/s Forever Living Products International from last two years. He had not filed any document in relation to his occupation in the present suit. Prior to this business he was working as a mobile mechanic in a shop at Uttam Nagar, Matyala Road the name of which he do not know. Again said the name of that shop was Aditya Mobile Zone. Admitted that he was learning in M/s Dieno World located at Palam, Delhi where he was learning a mobile mechanic course from Mr. Naveen Jain. He do not know Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.31/53 who was the owner of M/s Dieno World but Mr. Naveen Jain was his only teacher. He cannot tell the exact time period when he did the course under Mr. Naveen Jain but it might be 4 years back and today also as and when he need any assistance or guidance he seeks his help and visit him. Admitted that Mr. Naveen Jain also visits him at the suit property. He knew Mr. Naveen Jain from last 8-9 years whom he got introduced through Mr. Dinesh Jain. He knew the late father of Mr. Naveen Jain also whose name was Late Sh. Pawan Jain. Admitted that Late Mr. Pawan Jain also used to visit him at the suit property. Admitted that a quarrel took place in front of the suit property regarding disconnection of electricity in the said premise. The quarrel took place between him, plaintiff and one employee of TPDDL namely Mr. Raju Yadav, however Mr. Naveen Jain and his late father Mr. Pawan Jain was also present. He cannot tell whether he, Mr. Naveen Jain and Late Mr. Pawan Jain raised hands on the plaintiff and the employee of TPDDL namely Mr. Raju Yadav. At present he is taking electricity through a sub-meter installed in the suit property from one electric connection in the name of Mr. Mahinder Singh Jagdev. He do not know the address of the property from where the electricity is being provided in the suit property comprises of three rooms, one kitchen, toilet and bathroom which is located at ground floor. The property from which the electricity is being provided in the suit property situates at first floor. He do not know whether it is legal or illegal to provide electricity from one property to another. Witness was confronted with a document i.e. electricity bill of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff dated 29.05.2017 Ex. DW-3/P1. Admitted that the said document pertains to the suit property and depicts the name of plaintiff in whose name the electric connection has been provided.
Suit No. 26759/16Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.32/53 The name of his wife is Mrs. Reena who is also staying with him at the suit property immediately after 2-3 years of his marriage. He got married to Mrs. Reena in the year 2012. Witness was shown a video recording dated 15.10.2016 from the cell phone of plaintiff to the witness who identifies his wife having conversation with the plaintiff and admitted that he was working under Mr. Naveen Jain who pays him approx. Rs. 10-12,000/- per month and adjust the rent of suit property from his salary. After watching the said video witness was asked to identify whether her wife is depicted therein or not. He has stated that it is his wife. Since the video has been shown to him and he had admitted the same. It was placed on record in the form of CD alongwith its transcript and certificate under Section 65B of IEA Ex. DW-3/P2, Ex. DW-3/P3 (colly) and Ex. DW-3/P4 respectively. Admitted that the roof of the suit property is in a dilapidated condition and the same can fall down anytime. He had not repaired the same, volunteered he is ready to get it repaired. He could not tell who is the owner of the suit property. He has only seen one attorney document pertaining to ownership in favour of Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev by Sh. Karamjeet. He knows Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev through Sh. Dinesh who resides at Shahdara, Delhi. He could not tell or recollect when did he first met Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev. The rent agreement between him and Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev was prepared on 01.09.2018 in the presence of Sh. Deepu and Sh. Shamsher. Only two people were present at the time of execution of rent agreement. He do not know where did he signed on the rent agreement however the same was executed at Patiala House Court. The rate of rent is Rs. 1,200/- per month which he has tendered by way of account transfer in the savings account with Canara Bank, Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.33/53 Branch not known of Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev however he had not filed any statement of account or receipt in this regard. The rent agreement between him and Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev was executed for the period of 11 months only which stood expired as on date. No fresh or further rent agreement was prepared after the expiry of said rent agreement. His police verification as tenant in the said property was done through his lawyer namely Sh. N.K. Sharma whose chamber is at Patiala House Court. He knows the plaintiff who resides just above the suit property whom he used to see on daily basis and have conversations. Denied that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. He cannot tell on whose name the property tax or conservancy tax being paid to Delhi Cantonment Board. Denied that he is staying in the suit property at the behest of Mr. Naveen Jain. Further denied that he is deposing falsely at the behest of Mr. Naveen Jain. His evidence affidavit was prepared at Dwarka Court however he do not remember where he had signed the same and it was attested at Patiala House Court before the Oath Commissioner. He do not know the date of attestation. He got it attested himself however his counsel was present in his chamber at that time. He do not know the contents of his evidence affidavit at present. Denied deposing falsely.
10.DW-4 is Dinesh Kumar (who is defendant No. 2 in the present case) and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW- 4/A bearing his signature at points A and B and has relied upon the following documents i.e. Photocopy of handing over and taking over possession letter dated 31.08.2018 Ex. DW-2/DW1/1 (OSR) bearing his signature at point B. During cross-examination stated that his permanent address and current address is D-122, Street No. 14-B, Sadh Nagar, Palam, New Delhi-45. He do not know whether Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.34/53 he has filed copy of his Aadhar Card in the present case, volunteered he had filed one photo ID. Admitted that Naveen Kumar is his cousin brother who resides at Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. but he do not know his address. He cannot tell the municipal number of the suit property however the same is located at a Ground Floor in Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. comprising of one room, kitchen and a bathroom. He do not know who pays the municipal and other taxes w.r.t. the suit property and to whom. He do not even know in whose name the electric connection is installed. At the time of taking the suit property on tenancy there was an electric connection installed in the suit property but he do not know whom it belonged to because it was not necessary for me to know the said fact. He had taken the suit property on tenancy for his office and residence purposes where he stayed from 2012 to 2018. he has also filed a rent agreement of 11 months in respect to his tenancy but the same had never been renewed after expiry. The rent which he used to pay was Rs. 1,200/- per month to one of his mutual friend Mr. Pankaj Arora. The suit property was shown to him by Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev who is his friend and through Mr. Pankaj Arora he met him around 8 years back. Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev introduced himself as the owner of the suit property who did not showed him any of the document pertaining to the ownership, volunteered he also never asked him to show the ownership documents till date as the same was not required. The rent agreement in respect to the suit property between him and Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev was executed on 07.06.2012 in front of two attesting witnesses of the document namely Mr. Arun and Mr. Sudhir who both resides at Palam, Delhi. The addresses of whom he do not know. The rent agreement was prepared at Patiala House Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.35/53 Court, Delhi through his lawyer Mr. M.L. Sharma at his chamber and the same was executed and attested at his chamber only. Again said it was notarized before the public notary. He do not know what all he had taken on tenancy from Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev in the suit property. He do not know who is plaintiff and where as he resides and even never had any sort of conversation with him. He do not know the address of the suit property which he had taken on rent from Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev, volunteered there is one Dilip building in Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. He is working as entrepreneur of M/s Zenpen Communications, Blisstech.com which is located at office No. 4, Vakil Market, Chakarpur, DLF Phase IV, Gurgaon from last 20 years however he is sitting there from last one year only. He do not know who is defendant No. 3 in the present case. Mr. Jitender Bhatt worked with him for around 4 years and he was the only one who resided in the suit property since the inception of his tenancy and he is probably still residing in the suit property as per his knowledge. He had never resided in the suit property. He do not have or had any sort of connection or relation with M/s Dieno World located at Palam, Delhi. He do not know whether his tenancy verification had been conducted by Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev in respect to the suit property. He used to pay Rs. 6,800/- p.m. to Mr. Jitender Bhatt in addition to Rs. 1,200/- p.m. for house allowances in respect to suit property. The suit property had been taken on tenancy by him for the benefit of Mr. Jitender Bhatt because the same was not suitable for him for his office or any other purpose. He had never made any endeavor to introduce Mr. Jitender Bhatt to meet the landlord directly and got the rent agreement executed in his name only. He has vacated the tenanted property on 31.08.2018 to Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev in Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.36/53 front of Mr. Mohit and Mr. Manish. Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev did not served him any notice to vacate the suit property. He vacated the same voluntarily because it was not required by him and he also terminated Jitender from his employment under him. He do not know who is Mr. Mohit who is one of an attesting witness to the possession letter executed between him and Mr. Mahender Singh Jagdev. He knows only Mr. Manish whose complete address he do not know, however, he is his friend who resides at Palam, Delhi. The possession letter was executed between 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Patiala House Court in the chamber of his lawyer Mr. M.L.Sharma on 31/08/2018. He asked Jitender to remove his belongings from the suit property for vacating the same to Mahender Singh Jagdev. According, Jitender removed his belongings and he orally handed over the suit property to Mahender Singh Jagdev. He has not filed any rent receipts in respect to the suit property under the tenancy of Mahender Singh Jagdev before this Hon'ble court as the same has never been executed or required by him. He used to pay rent of approx. three to four months together to Mr. Pankaj Arora in respect to the suit property in cash. He do not know where Mr. Pankaj Arora resides., volunteered he resides somewhere in Noida. His evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as DW-4/A was prepared and executed on 17/09/2022. The same was prepared at his lawyer's chamber and attested at Patiala House Court, New Delhi by Oath Commissioner. Only he was present at the time of attestation of his evidence by way of affidavit. He appointed Mr. M.L. Sharma, advocate as his counsel in the year 2012 only when he had taken the suit property, volunteered he knows his counsel since the time of execution of rent agreement i.e. 2012. He had executed Vakalatnama in favour Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.37/53 of his counsel on 17/09/2022. He know the contents of his evidence by way of affidavit. He do not know whether Navin Jain had ever taken the suit property on rent from the plaintiff. He had seen the plaintiff for the very first time in this court, in this case. Denied that he is deposing falsely before this court at the behest of his cousin brother Mr. Navin Jain. Admitted that he has taken the property on rent but he has never resided there. He do not know who is Mrs. Reena (defendant No. 4). Denied that the suit property has been illegally grabbed by him and other defendants. He do not have any connection or relation with the suit property or Mr. Jitender Bhatt. Denied that he is deposing falsely.
11.Both the Ld. Counsels has argued their case and I have perused the record carefully.
12.By way of present suit the plaintiff has sought the relief of ejectment, recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits. The claim of the plaintiff is that he inducted defendant No. 1 Naveen Jain as tenant in the suit property for a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500/- excluding other charges via rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) for a period of 3 years and at that time defendant No. 1 had deposited Rs. 3 Lakhs as security amount towards the rented premises. Defendant No. 1 in his statement as DW-1 has admitted the said rent agreement and his signatures thereupon. As per clause 10 of the agreement the tenancy was terminable by either party by giving one month notice and the plaintiff had sent a notice dated 09.01.2012 to the defendant No. 1 which is Ex. PW-1/4, postal receipt, courier receipt thereof Ex. PW- 1/5 and Ex. PW-1/6 respectively but later on filing of the present suit when defendant No. 1 filed his written statement dated 08.06.2012 the plaintiff amended his suit and the amendment was Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.38/53 allowed vide order dated 20.08.2019. Before that vide order dated 14.02.2019 defendant No. 2 to 4 in the present matter has been impleaded on allowing of a separate application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The stand taken by the plaintiff is that he inducted defendant No. 1 as a tenant in the suit property and defendant No. 1 despite service of legal notice did not returned him the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property rather as per the defence taken by defendant No. 1 he states that defendant No. 1 handed over the possession of the suit property to one Mahender Singh Jagdev on 06.12.2011 upon receiving a legal notice dated 25.11.2011 from Mahender Singh Jagdev which was served upon defendant No. 1 by Mahender Singh Jagdev by hand. Defendant No. 1 has claimed that at the time of handing over of the possession the plaintiff was present and in his presence and in presence of one Bharat Bhusan and Feroz as witnesses possession of suit property was handed over to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev. Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev is not a party to the present lis but he claims himself to be SPA holder of his sister namely Smt. Paramjeet Kaur who claims herself to be co- owner of the suit property. As per rent agreement Ex. PW-1/1 the lessor i.e. plaintiff mentioned therein himself to be absolute owner and in possession of II/40/1, Dalip Singh Building, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi meaning thereby there was no room left for Mr. Naveen Jain (lessee) to think that there was another co- owner of the suit property. The version of the defendant No. 1 is that Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev claimed himself to be co-owner of the suit property being brother of wife of one of the plaintiff's cousin brother and in that capacity he served a legal notice on him at behest of his sister (so called co-owner) and therefore, he handed over the possession of the suit property to Sh. Mahender Singh Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.39/53 Jagdev in presence of the plaintiff. Plaintiff in his statement has categorically denied his presence at the time of handing over of possession. It is very interesting to note that DW-1 in his statement has clearly testified that plaintiff is his landlord with regard to the suit property and he has not denied the rent agreement dated 11.03.2011. He himself stated that the suit property was taken by him on rent from the plaintiff and he used to pay the rent via cheque only to the plaintiff and at times his wife used to issue cheque towards rent, despite that he chose to hand over the possession of the suit property to a third person. There was no reason to believe by the defendant No. 1 that there can be other co-owner also as in the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/1 plaintiff has mentioned that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, it is surprising that on service of legal notice instead of handing over possession directly to the plaintiff who inducted the defendant No. 1 as tenant in the suit property he chose to hand it over to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev, SPA of the so called co-owner and defendant No. 1 also claims that in presence of plaintiff only the property was handed over to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev and also in presence of other two witnesses namely Bharat Bhusan and Feroz on 06.12.2011. It is again surprising that a hand written document is stated to have been executed between the parties qua handing over and taking over of the possession of the suit property which mentions about the security amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs also which was given by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff, the said documents bear signature of all four persons i.e. defendant No. 1, Mahender Singh Jagdev and the two witnesses but does not bear signature of the plaintiff from whom actually the defendant No. 1 had to take back his Rs. 3 Lakhs which was paid by him as security amount at the time of execution of Ex.
Suit No. 26759/16Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.40/53 PW-1/1. DW-1/defendant No. 1 in his statement has clearly denied filing of any suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs from the plaintiff, reason thereof is best known to the defendant No.
1. It is astonishing again to see that Rs. 3 Lakhs were left unrecovered by the defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff that too in the year 2011-2012, the value of which was much more then than as on date.
13.In order to show possession prior to execution of rent agreement Ex. PW-1/1 with the defendant No. 1 plaintiff has filed copy of first page of plaint and order dated 17.03.2011 and the statement of him and one Sh. Mukesh Kumar who was defendant No. 1 in the civil suit No. 51/10/CS and in this regard PW Geetanjali Malik i.e. Record Keeper from the Record Room Sessions, South West District, Dwarka Court was called alongwith the record of said civil suit titled as "Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Mukesh & Ors" decided by Sh. K. Venugopal, the then Ld. ADJ, Dwarka Courts on 17.03.2011 consigned to record room vide Goshwara No. 260D. The documents so tendered qua the said civil suit are Ex. PW-1/3. As per the order dated 17.03.2011 on the statement of both the parties as to the compromise having been arrived at between them the matter was settled. On perusal of the order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Ld. ADJ it is observed that the plaintiff had sued defendants in the capacity of landlord and as per the compromise the defendant No. 1 had vacated the suit property and handed over the possession thereof to the plaintiff on 06.03.2011 and in lieu of the same plaintiff had paid Rs. 4 Lakhs i.e. security deposit to the defendant No. 1 (Mukesh) and accordingly the matter was disposed of as settled, meaning thereby it was the plaintiff who was handed over/having possession of the suit property. PW-2/Record Keeper Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.41/53 has categorically testified that the address of the suit property matches with the record, which means that the suit property herein was also the suit property in the said civil suit mentioned supra. Further to show possession of the suit property the plaintiff has examined two more witnesses namely Bidhyadhar Swain and Mohd. Ali who were earlier inducted as tenant by the plaintiff in the suit property in the year 2006 and 2004 respectively. After the decision of the civil suit No. 51/10 vide order dated 17.03.2011, vide rent agreement Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) (also Ex. P1/D1) defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in March 2011. Sufficient evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show that he was in possession of the suit property prior to handing over the possession of suit property to defendant No. 1 and earlier also the suit property was rented out by him to different different tenants at different point of time. No iota of evidence has been led by the defendants or DW-2 i.e. Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev that he or his sister, of whom he claims to be SPA holder, were in possession of the suit property in any manner.
14.The present suit is not for declaration of title qua the suit property but is of ejectment, recovery of possession, rent and damages. Therefore, this court will not delve upon the issue of ownership qua the suit property. The only question which needs adjudication here is whether the defendant No. 1 was justified in his act to hand over possession of the suit property/tenanted premises to SPA of the so called co-owner or whether he was legally bound to hand over possession of the suit property to the landlord only. Here it is worth mentioning that as per Section 116 of Evidence Act a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord. Under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant, the question of Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.42/53 title to the leased property is irrelevant. This doctrine is based on equitable principle in as much as once one enters into the premises as a tenant and continues to possess in that capacity, he cannot be heard to deny the lessor's title. As per Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a lease of immovable property come to an end by forfeiture in case of lessee renouncing his character as such by setting up a character in a third person or claiming title in himself. Thus, once a lease stands forfeited by operation of law, the person in occupation of the premises cannot take benefit of the legal tenancy. This provision under Section 111(g) is based on public policy and the principle of estoppel. A person who takes premises on rent from landlord is estopped from challenging his title or right to let out the premises. If he does so he does at his own peril and law does not recognize such a person as legal tenant in the premises. Reliance placed upon Skyland International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P Lalwani, decided on 25.05.2012 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
15.Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides for rights and liabilities of the lessor and lessee. As per 108 (b) it is the lessor who is bound to put the lessee on his request in possession of the property. Similarly, as per Section 108 (m) the lessee is bound to keep, and on termination of the lease to restore, the property in as good condition as it was in at the time when he was put in possession, possession of the property to the lessor. Section 108 (q) provides that on determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to put the lessor in possession of the property. The provision contained in Section 108 clearly talks about the lessor and it nowhere talks about the owner or the co-owner. Therefore, as per law the defendant No. 1 was bound to hand over the vacant possession of Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.43/53 the suit property to the plaintiff only, he being lessor. A tenant who upon determination of the tenancy does not deliver up possession to the landlord as required by Section 108 (q), cannot be heard to say that he is not a tenant--be he one at sufferance or be he one from month to month. Therefore, unless the landlord is actually put into possession, the premises remain under a tenancy, which unless assented to by the landlord, has the character of one at sufferance. Defendant No. 1 has clearly admitted rent agreement and plaintiff being his landlord in his statement as DW-1. Further no ownership document etc. was shown by DW-2/Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev to the defendant No. 1 when he served the legal notice to vacate the suit property on defendant No. 1, then why the defendant No. 1 went on to hand over the possession of the suit property to the SPA of a so-called owner, no satisfactory reason has been given by the defendant No. 1 in this regard. He had no reason to believe that Smt. Paramjeet Kaur w/o late Sh. Iqbal Singh is co-owner of the suit property. In this regard, DW-1 in his cross-
examination/pleading has also stated that he was not shown any ownership documents by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev or he being SPA of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. DW-2 i.e. Mahender Singh Jagdev has also testified that suit property was never ever in possession of either him or his sister Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. He also testified that defendant No. 1 never approached him to show the ownership documents of the suit property either in his sister's name or his name and only on being told that his sister is the co-owner of the suit property, defendant No. 1 straightaway believed him and on service of legal notice by hand only the possession was handed over to him by defendant No. 1. The handing over and taking over possession letter dated 06.12.2011 Ex. DW-1/2 & Ex. DW-1/3 Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.44/53 respectively does not bear signature of the plaintiff, when so much diligence was exercised by the defendant No. 1 & DW-2 while handing over and taking over of the possession of the suit property that it was reduced into writing and even signatures of two witnesses were obtained thereon, it is beyond my understanding that why signatures of the plaintiff are not obtained when it was him who was under an obligation to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs to the defendant No. 1 which was the security amount given to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1.
16. As per the version of the defendant No. 1 after Mr. Naveen Jain (defendant No. 1), the defendant No. 2 namely Dinesh Kumar was inducted as a tenant by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev (DW-2). Defendant No. 2 has been examined as DW 4 in the present case. In his statement he has admitted that he is the cousin brother of defendant No. 1. He states that he was inducted as a tenant on 07.06.2012 by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev (SPA of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur) for residential purpose for self and his employee and since his employee had left the employment he surrendered possession of the suit property vide handing over/taking over possession letter dated 31.08.2018. In his evidence he has stated that Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev introduced himself as owner of the suit property but he did not showed any document pertaining to his ownership. He or his employee has remained in possession of the suit property from 07.06.2012 till 31.08.2018 but he never bothered to know that in whose name electricity connection is installed in the suit property, qua the same he testified that it was not necessary for him to know that. He did not even know who used to pay municipal and other taxes qua the suit property and to whom. He has admitted in his statement that he never resided in the suit property himself and his Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.45/53 employee used to reside. He has testified that Mr. Jitender Bhatt worked with him and he was the only one who resided in the suit property since the inception of his tenancy and he stated further that probably he is still residing in the suit property as per his knowledge. Jitender Bhatt is defendant No. 3 in the present case. Defendant No. 2 (DW-4) further testified that he used to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month for house allowance in respect of the suit property to Jitender Bhatt and the suit property was taken by him on tenancy for benefit of defendant No. 3/Jitender only and possession thereof was handed over on 31.08.2018 to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev orally.
17. Defendant No. 3 i.e. Jitender Bhatt has taken the stand that he was inducted as a tenant on 01.09.2018 by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev, SPA holder, rent agreement in this regard is Ex. DW-3/DW- 1/1. It is worth mentioning here that immediately on the next day when possession of suit property was handed over by Dinesh to Mahender Singh Jagdev, on the next day rent agreement has been executed by defendant No. 3 in his individual capacity with Mahender Singh Jagdev. To the knowledge of plaintiff as well as, as per the stand taken by all the defendants at present it is defendant No. 3 & his wife defendant No. 4 who are residing in the suit property. Defendant No. 3 has been examined as DW-3 in the present case and he admitted in his cross-examination that he was learning the mobile mechanic course in M/s Dieno World at Palam, Delhi under Mr. Naveen Jain. He further deposed that he know defendant No. 1 from last 8-9 years whom he got introduced through defendant No. 2. On being asked in cross-examination he also testified that today also as and when he needs any assistance or guidance he seeks help from defendant No. 1 and visits him also. In Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.46/53 this regard, defendant No. 1 in his evidence also has testified that defendant No. 3 was a mobile repairing trainee under him at M/s Dieno World situated at Palam, Delhi and defendant No. 3 is still in his touch, however he do not meet him frequently. He has also admitted defendant No. 2 being his cousin brother. After careful perusal of the evidence of all the defendants and the admissions which has come in their cross-examination it can be safely held that all the defendants are related or known to each other. Initially it was defendant No. 1 who was inducted as a tenant vide rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has stated that the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property was never given to him by defendant no. 1 despite service of legal notice dated 09.01.2012, delivered on 12.01.2012. Per contra, defendant No. 1 has testified that on 06.12.2011 the possession has been handed over to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev by him in presence of the plaintiff, however, plaintiff has categorically denied his presence rather plaintiff claims that at the behest of defendant No. 1 only without any permission of his, the suit property has been given to defendant No. 2 and later to defendant No. 3 by the defendant No. 1 and all this has been done by all the defendants in connivance with each other in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, the relations between plaintiff and the other so called co-owner Smt. Paramjeet Kaur/her SPA Mahender Singh Jagdev are not cordial and there are property disputes inter se. After going through the statement of all the defendant witnesses their acting in connivance with each other to defeat the rights of the plaintiff is manifest and it is also observed that after the so called handing over of possession of the suit property to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev by defendant No. 1, as claimed by defendant No. 1 himself after 06.12.2011 the Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.47/53 possession has remained with defendant No. 3 only, initially as employee of defendant No. 2 from 07.06.2012 to 31.08.2018 and later on in his individual capacity from 01.09.2018 and also as on date. All the defendants on merely being told by SPA Mahender Singh Jagdev that his sister Smt. Paramjeet Kaur is co-owner of the suit property believed him, there was no reason to believe for them to come to this conclusion that Mahender Singh Jagdev or his sister has any right/title/interest in the suit property, more specifically when the plaintiff is clearly stated to be absolute owner of the suit property in the rent agreement dated 11.03.2011 Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR). In this regard, the testimony of Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev is very interesting as he has feigned ignorance from answering those material questions which he should have been aware being the so called landlord of defendant No. 2 or defendant No. 3 & 4. He stated that he do not know as to who was tenant in the suit property before defendant No. 1. He do not remember whether any tenant of the Dalip Singh Building (including suit property) ever handed over possession to him on behalf of his sister or to his sister directly. He do not remember how much rent he was charging from the tenants including defendant No. 2 & 3. As to keeping an employee as tenant by defendant No. 2 he testified that no written permission from him was obtained by defendant No. 2 before inducting his employee/agent as tenant in the suit property. Defendant No. 2 has categorically testified that he does not have any documents qua the ownership of the suit property or as authorized representative of his sister Paramjeet Kaur. He has clearly admitted that neither his sister nor him were ever in possession of the suit property and he never showed any ownership documents etc. to the defendants even while Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.48/53 asking back for possession of suit property from defendant No. 1 or also while inducting defendant No. 2 or defendant No. 3 as tenants.
18. During the pendency of the suit an incident dated 09.02.2017 had taken place concerning the electricity connection of the suit property, on the said date a quarrel took place between the plaintiff, defendant No. 1, father of defendant No. 1 (late Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain), defendant No. 3 and employee of TPDDL which was registered vide DD No. 26A dated 09.02.2017 at PS Delhi Cantt. under Section 323 IPC. The issue took place as to disconnection of electricity meter of the suit property. In this regard, plaintiff has claimed that after the said incident defendant No. 1 is providing electricity to the suit property for the user of defendant No. 3 & 4. In this regard, defendant No. 1 in his written statement has mentioned that at present Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev is supplying electricity to the suit property through a sub-meter which is occupied by defendant No. 3 & 4. In his evidence defendant No. 1 testified that the electricity being supplied to the suit property is from the electricity connection of the property which is under his tenancy presently. To show further the defendants and Sh Mahender Singh Jagdev being acting against the interest of the plaintiff in order to defeat his rights the plaintiff, he has placed on record C.D alongwith its transcript and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, the said video contained therein was shown to defendant No. 3 and after watching the said video defendant No. 3 admitted that defendant No. 4 i.e. his wife is depicting therein. On his admission the same were exhibited on record. In the video dated 15.10.2016, wife of defendant No. 3 is having conversation with the plaintiff and therein defendant No. 4 has admitted that defendant No. 3/her husband being working under defendant No. 1 who pays Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.49/53 him Rs. 10,000 to 12,000/- per month and adjust the rent of the suit property from his salary. From all the above discussion, it is clear that all the defendants are hand in glove with each other and the whole execution of the documents Ex. DW-1/2, DW-1/3, DW- 2/DW1/1, issuance of rent receipt No. 1 of 01.09.2018 amounting Rs. 1,200/- Ex. DW-2/DW-1/1 etc. is an after thought only and same has been done with intention to grab the suit property and take possession thereof from the plaintiff due to the on going dispute qua property between the plaintiff and other so called owner Smt. Paramjeet Kaur through her SPA Mahender Singh Jagdev.
19. Issue No. 3, 4, 5 & 6Issue No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 are taken up together as the same being interconnected. The burden to prove the same was on defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 & 4 respectively. The handing over of the possession by the defendant No. 1 to Mahender Singh Jagdev with the consent of the plaintiff has not been proved by the defendant No. 1. No satisfactory evidence has been led to establish the presence of plaintiff at the time of handing over of possession or execution of Ex. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-1/3. Therefore, it can not be said that the possession of the suit property was handed over to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev by the defendant No. 1 with the consent of the plaintiff.
20. As per the facts and evidence led defendant No. 2 and 3 & 4 has been inducted as tenant in the suit property by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev but from the above discussion it is held that they have been inducted by Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev without the permission and knowledge of the plaintiff and they can be called licensee of defendant No. 1 only as defendant No. 1 was under obligation to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.50/53 the plaintiff only, he being landlord and not to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev. Accordingly, issue No. 3, 4, 5 are decided in negative as the possession of suit property to Mahender Singh Jagdev has been given without the consent of the plaintiff and without his permission defendant No. 2, 3 & 4 has been inducted as tenants. Issue No. 6 is decided in favour of the plaintiff whereby it is held that defendant No. 2 to 4 were the licensees of defendant No. 1 and in connivance with Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev they have been inducted as tenants or occupied the suit property as licensees without permission of the plaintiff.
21. Issue No. 2.
Issue No. 2, in view of the observations made above the plaintiff is held entitled to decree of possession of the suit property thereby the defendants are directed to give vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property within 3 months from the date of passing of the judgment. Accordingly, same is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
22. Issue No. 7, 8, 9 & 10.
Further plaintiff is also held entitled to recovery of Rs. 13,000/- against the defendant No. 1 on account of arrears of rent for the period 11.12.2011 to 10.02.2012. Immense loss has been caused to the plaintiff due to not handing over him the possession of the suit property by the defendant No. 1 and the execution of the subsequent rent agreements between Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev and defendant No. 2 & 3 are mere eye wash done with intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, therefore, defendant No. 1 to 3 are jointly liable to pay Rs. 500/- per day as damages/mesne profits from the filing of the present suit till the vacant possession of the suit property is handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 or his Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.51/53 licensees i.e. defendant No. 2 to 4, more specifically defendant No.
3. Also plaintiff is held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of the suit recoverable from defendant No. 1 to 3 jointly. It is an admitted fact that Rs. 3 Lakhs were given by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff at the time of execution of rent agreement Ex. PW-1/1, plaintiff is allowed to adjust the said amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs towards the rent and damages as part payment recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1.
23. Issue No. 1.
Issue No. 1, no iota of evidence has been led by the defendants as to how the present suit is not maintainable and even during arguments the said issue has not been pressed or arguments has been advanced thereon. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in negative and against the defendants.
RELIEF
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, relief granted in favour of plaintiff is as follows:-
Plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of possession of the suit property whereby defendants are directed to give vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property within three months from the date of passing of this judgment to the plaintiff. The defendants has failed to prove that the possession of the suit property was handed over by defendant No. 1 to Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev with the consent of the plaintiff. Further defendant No. 2 to 4 are held to be the licensees of the defendant No. 1 who has been inducted as tenant by him inconnivance with Sh. Mahender Singh Jagdev.
Plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of Rs. 13,000/- on account of arrears of rent for the period 11.12.2011 to 10.02.2012, from the Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.52/53 defendant No. 1. Plaintiff is also held entitled to recovery of damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day from the filing of the present suit till the vacant possession of the suit property is handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants, the same is to be paid jointly by all the defendants. Plaintiff is allowed to adjust Rs. 3 lakhs i.e. security amount given by defendant No. 1 towards the rent and damages as part payment recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1. Plaintiff is also held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of the suit recoverable from defendant No. 1 to 3 jointly.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed DEEPIKA by DEEPIKA THAKRAN THAKRAN Date: 2023.01.31 16:48:57 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Deepika Thakran) on 31.01.2023 Civil Judge- II, Dwarka Courts South West District, New Delhi 31.01.2023. Suit No. 26759/16 Jasbir Singh Loyal Vs. Naveen Jain & Ors. Page no.53/53