Delhi District Court
Surender Kumar Chadha vs . Smt. Asha Lata on 1 May, 2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
IN THE COURT OF Sh. TARUN YOGESH
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03: SOUTH WEST DISTRICT:
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Regular Civil Appeal No. 122/17
CNR No. DLSW010110752017
In the matter of:
Sh. Surender Kumar Chadha
S/o late Sh. D. R. Chadha
Proprietor of M/s Radhika Fashions,
B1, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
Also at:
R/o FA310A, Mansarover Garden,
New Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Asha Lata
W/o Sh. Suresh Chander
R/o B1, Third Floor,
Ram Dutt Enclave,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi. ... Respondent
Date of Institution of Appeal : 11.09.2017
Date on which judgment was reserved : 05.04.2019
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 01.05.2019
APPEAL AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 02.08.2017 PASSED BY SH.
CHANDER MOHAN, CIVIL JUDGE04, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI IN SUIT NO. 10507/16
Page 1 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
:J U D G M E N T:
1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated
02.08.2017 directing defendant to handover possession of the second floor
and basement of property No. B2, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
and pay arrears of rent @ Rs. 4,000/ per month along with simple interest @
6% per annum.
2. Brief facts set out in the plaint are as under:
2.1 Plaintiff Smt. Asha Lata has filed suit for recovery of
Rs.1,44,000/ and possession of entire second floor and basement of
Property No. B2, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred as tenanted premises) asserting herself as absolute owner of the
property.
2.2 Tenanted premises comprising one hall, one small room, one
latrine and one bathroom on the entire second floor and one hall with wooden
partition, one latrine and one bathroom on the third floor was let out to
defendant upon monthly rent of Rs.4,000/ by virtue of rent agreement dated
09.10.2006 for a period of five years commencing from 28.09.2006 and
defendant agreed to deposit Rs.2,50,000/ as security amount which was to
be refunded after expiry of tenancy.
2.3 The rent agreement was duly registered in the Office of Sub
Registrar, Janak Puri, New Delhi and defendant feeling inconvenience in
running his business on the third floor requested plaintiff to shift him on the
basement of the property which was allowed and defendant as such is in
occupation of the second floor and basement of the property.
Page 2 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
2.4 It is averred that security deposit of Rs.2,50,000/ which included
Rs.50,000/ in cash and Rs.2,00,000/ through cheque No. 570227 dated
07.10.2006 drawn on Andhra Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was never given
to plaintiff and defendant is occupying the property for running his business
without paying any rent. Defendant, in addition, is also stated to have refused
to pay the security deposit and arrears of rent on one pretext or the other and
is deliberately withholding the agreed amount of rent.
2.5 Legal notice dated 08.03.2011 was eventually sent through her
counsel calling upon the defendant to pay Rs. 4,66,000/ which included
Rs.2,16,000/ towards arrears of rent and Rs. 2,50,000/ as security amount
within 15 days receipt of notice and defendant was also directed to handover
peaceful and vacant possession of suit property on or before 31.03.2011.
Notice terminating tenancy w.e.f. 08.03.2011 was duly served upon
defendant who neither replied nor paid the arrears of rent and did not vacate
the suit property till 31.03.2011. Plaintiff, left with no alternative, thereafter
filed suit for possession and recovery of Rs. 1,44,000/ as arrears of rent for
three years w.e.f. September 2008 to September 2011.
3. Defendant Sh. Surender Kumar Chadha appeared in court upon
service of process and matter was referred to Mediation Center, Dwarka for
amicable settlement which could not be effected and written statement was
thereafter filed by defendant for contesting plaintiff's suit by asserting himself
as bonafide purchaser in lawful occupation of the property having paid
Rs.1,00,00,000/ out of Rs.1,25,00,000/ towards sale consideration agreed
with plaintiff's husband Sh. Suresh Chander Chowdhary.
3.1 It is the case of defendant that he has purchased the property
Page 3 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
from plaintiff's husband and suit for possession and arrears of rent on the
basis of lease deed is not maintainable. Plaintiff's suit, in addition, has been
also assailed as abuse of process of law which has been filed for harassing
the defendant by disputing her locus standi and alleging about gross
concealment and suppression of material facts.
3.2 Defendant has stated about suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which has been
transferred to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and claims to be in lawful possession
of property No. B1, built on land bearing khasra No. 24/10, Ram Dutt
Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi comprising ground floor, first floor, second floor
and third floor on the basis of rights conferred and incorporated in the
memorandum of understanding dated 16.01.2008 duly signed and executed
by plaintiff's husband which is the subject matter of Civil Suit bearing CS(OS)
No. 170 of 2011 tilted "Surinder Chadha vs. Suresh Chander Chowdhary"
and restraining order dated 25.01.2011 protecting his right has been passed
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which order was modified vide order dated
06.05.2011.
3.3 It is further averred by defendant that he was inducted as tenant
in respect of first, second and third floor of property No. B1 Ram Dutt
Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which in fact was inadvertently described as B2,
Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi in the lease deed dated 10.10.2005
and tenancy rights of the first floor of property was surrendered which was
thereafter rented to M/s Ranga Crafts through its proprietor Sh. Rakesh Singh
and fresh lease deed of second floor and third floor of the property was
thereafter executed by plaintiff in his favour which was registered on
09.10.2006.
Page 4 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
3.4 Plaintiff's husband Sh. Suresh Chander Chowdhary, being owner
of the property, thereafter approached him and offered to sell the property for
total sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,00,000/ and terms and conditions agreed
between parties was reduced in writing as memorandum of understanding
dated 16.01.2008 whereby it was agreed that plaintiff's husband will execute
sale deed of property in favour of defendant for sale consideration of
Rs.1,25,00,000/ which would be registered in the office of Sub Registrar,
Janak Puri, Delhi. Defendant, on his part, has paid Rs.1,00,00,000/ which
includes loan liability of Rs. 21,00,000/ due and outstanding against State
Bank of India and loan liability of Rs. 79,00,000/ due and outstanding against
UCO bank but plaintiff's husband failed to perform his part of contract and
deliberately refused to accept balance Rs. 25,00,000/ for executing
registered sale deed in his favour which led to filing of suit for specific
performance bearing CS(OS) No. 170/2011 wherein order dated 25.01.2011
was passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi restraining plaintiff's husband, his
agents, representatives and assignees from transferring, alienating, selling
and creating third party right, title or interest in property No. B1, khasra No.
24/10, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi till further orders.
3.5 Defendant, in addition, has contested plaintiff's suit by stating
about wrong municipal number of property intentionally given by the plaintiff
for misleading the court and opposed plaintiff's suit on the ground of non
joinder of necessary parties; valuation of suit for the purpose of court fee and
jurisdiction and by adverting to joint application under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 filed before Debt Recovery TribunalI, New Delhi.
4. Plaintiff's averments in the plaint were also disputed in
corresponding para of reply on merit and following issues were settled on
Page 5 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
27.07.2012 on the basis of pleadings:
1. Whether the plaintiff has ceased to be the owner of the suit
property? OPD
2. Whether the present suit is barred under the provision of
Transfer of Property Act? OPD
3. Whether the present suit is bad for nonjoinder of the
necessary party? OPD
4. Whether the present suit is not properly valued? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.
1,44,000/ against the defendant along with pendente lite and
future interest @ 12% per annum? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in
respect of the property, shown in Red Colour in the site plain
filed by the plaintiff, against the defendant? OPP
7. Relief.
5. Plaintiff Smt. Asha Lata, in support of her case, deposed as PW1
by tendering her affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence and relied upon documents
viz. (i) rent agreement dated 09.10.2006; (ii) site plan; (iii) legal notice dated
08.03.2011; (iv) postal receipts; (v) acknowledgment card verifying delivery at
B2 Ramdutt Enclave and (vi) unclaimed notice issued to defendant upon his
address at Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/6
respectively.
6. Examinationinchief of plaintiff (PW1) was recorded on
23.01.2013 and defendant's application under Section 10 CPC for stay of suit
was dismissed on 30.11.2013. Defendant was, thereafter, given ample
opportunities to crossexamine the plaintiff but in vain and his right to cross
Page 6 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
examine PW1 was closed on 11.11.2014.
7. Sh. Affak Ahmed, Record Keeper, SubRegistrar IIB, Janak Puri,
New Delhi examined as PW2 has brought original record of rent agreement
bearing registration No. 19572, Book No.1, Vol. No. 14218 at page No. 59 to
62 and proved copy of rent agreement as Ex. PW1/1. He was cross
examined and discharged on the same day.
8. Plaintiff Smt. Asha Lata (PW1) was thereafter recalled for cross
examination upon defendant's application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read
with Section 151 CPC which was allowed subject to cost Rs. 5000/ vide
order dated 03.11.2015 and her crossexamination was recorded on
29.02.2016 and 19.05.2016. No other witness was examined and plaintiff's
evidence was closed on the basis of statement of Advocate Sh. Anil Kumar
Sharma.
9. Matter was listed for defendant's evidence but no evidence was
led on record and defendant's evidence was closed on 05.10.2016 on the
basis of statement of Advocate Sh. Pawan Jain.
10. Matter was adjourned for final arguments and was thereafter
listed for order. Defendant, however, filed application under Order XVIII Rule
1 read with Section 151 CPC for leading evidence which was allowed on
26.12.2016 subject to cost Rs. 15,000/ to be paid to plaintiff. Defendant's
application under Section 151 CPC for waiver of cost was dismissed on
17.03.2017 and another application furnishing list of witnesses was partly
allowed on 28.04.2017 by allowing him to summon Sh. Manoj Goyal, Sh. S.K.
Chadha, Sh. Kamal Ahuja and Sh. Pankaj Arora as witnesses. Defendant,
nevertheless, failed to examine himself and his witnesses and his right to lead
Page 7 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
evidence was eventually closed on 19.07.2017.
11. Final arguments were addressed and plaintiff's suit was decreed
by Ld. Trial Court vide judgment delivered on 02.08.2017.
12. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, defendant Sh. Surender
Kumar Chadha has filed appeal along with applications under Order XLI Rule
5 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of execution of decree and Order XLI
Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to examine himself and his
witnesses cited in the list.
13. Defendant's application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section
151 CPC for stay of execution was allowed by Ld. Predecessor Judge subject
to deposit of 50% arrears of rent vide order dated 10.10.2017.
14. Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2017 deciding the suit in
plaintiff's favour has been assailed inter alia on following grounds:
14.1 Defendant has been made to suffer due to sheer negligence and
laxity on the part of the previous counsel.
14.2 Defendant could not appear in court on 03.02.2017 as he was
hospitalized between 10.01.2017 to 16.01.2017 due to neuro stroke leading
to partial paralysis of the arm and limb movements and could not therefore
lead evidence.
14.3 Defendant being bonafide purchaser is in lawful possession and
occupation of the property and plaintiff's suit for possession and arrears of
rent is not maintainable in view of payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ out of Rs.
1,25,00,000/ as per the terms of 'Memorandum Of Understanding' entered
with plaintiff's husband Sh. Suresh Chander Chowdhary.
14.4 Defendant is occupying the property as bonafide purchaser and
Page 8 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
not as tenant and suit for possession and arrears of rent has been filed by
plaintiff on the basis of false rent deed despite knowledge that her husband
has already sold the suit property and ad interim junction order has been
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which continues to operate against
plaintiff and her husband.
14.5 Plaintiff's suit is a glaring examine of abuse of process of law
which has been filed with ulterior motive to harass the defendant as
ownership rights of the property has vested in defendant.
14.6 Plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
concealment and suppression of material facts as defendant has filed suit for
specific performance of agreement to sell / 'Memorandum Of Understanding'
executed by Sh. Suresh Chander Chowdhary which is pending and decree of
possession and arrears of rent cannot be passed against bonafide purchaser
for valid sale consideration.
14.7 Plaintiff has intentionally given wrong municipal number of the
property for misleading the Court and has failed to join her husband who
being owner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 07.04.2000 is a
necessary party.
14.8 Defendant is in lawful possession of the suit property on the
basis of rights conferred and incorporated in the 'Memorandum Of
Understanding' dated 16.01.2008 and has performed his part of contract by
paying Rs. 21,00,000/ to State Bank of India and Rs. 79,00,000/ to UCO
Bank against loan liability of plaintiff's husband and is ready and willing to pay
balance Rs. 25,00,000/ at the time of execution of sale deed but plaintiff's
husband is intentionally and deliberately not performing his part of contract.
Page 9 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
14.9 Possession of ground floor of the property was handed over to
defendant at the time of execution of memorandum of understanding whereas
possession of second and third floor continued to remain with defendant on
the basis of registered lease deed executed in his favour in the year 2007.
14.10 Property No. B2, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi is
the adjacent plot with two shops on the front side and remaining portion lying
vacant which is owned by Bharat Builders and defendant was shocked and
taken aback by possession notice dated 16.06.2007 issued by UCO Bank
wherein it was stated that possession of property No. B2, Ram Dutt Enclave,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi has been taken over in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 13 (4) of The SARFAESI Act, 2002 and defendant along with
Sh. Rakesh, tenant on the first floor of the property, jointly filed application
under Section 17 of The SARFAESI Act, 2002 before DRT New Delhi for
declaring the order of UCO Bank as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
15. Advocate Sh. S. S. Katyal for appellant and Advocate Sh. Gajraj
Singh and Sh. Pankaj Singh for respondent have addressed their
submissions.
16. Ld. counsel for appellant has referred to copy of order dated
24.10.2017 passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRTII, Delhi remanding the
matter to Recovery OfficerII for deciding whether plaintiff Smt. Asha Lata
Chaudhary is entitled to mortgage the property; copy of order dated
31.05.2018 passed by Recovery OfficerI, DRTII holding that alleged
mortgage by Smt. Asha Lata in favour of CH Bank by deposit of title deed is
per se nothing but null and void and relied upon following judgments in
support of appeal assailing impugned judgment and application for
Page 10 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
permission to lead evidence in Appellate Court:
i. Rafiq & Anr. vs. Munshi Lal & Anr. AIR 1981 Supreme Court
1400 - party should not suffer for misdemeanour or inaction of
his counsel;
ii. Naseem Begum vs. Saifi Mohammad 203 (2013) DLT 737 DB
- lapse on part of counsel to examine appellant could not be
attributed to her nor there is any unwillingness / reluctance on
her part to enter witness box;
iii. Delhi Jal Board vs. Digvijay Sanitation & Anr. 160 (2009) DLT
92 -petitioner cannot be made to suffer for negligence on part of
counsel;
iv. Union of India vs. K V Laxman IV (2016) SLT 581 - Order XLI
Rule 27 - additional evidence - considerations - if a party to
appeal is able to satisfy the Appellate Court that there is
justifiable reason for not filing such evidence at trial stage and
that additional evidence is relevant and material for deciding
rights of parties which are subjectmatter of lis, Court should
allow party to file such additional evidence - Court has to do
substantial justice to parties;
v. M/s Sudhir Engineering Company vs. M/s Mitco Roadways
Ltd. 1995 II AD (Delhi) 189 - Admission of document in evidence
does not amount to its proof - neither the marking of an exhibit
number can be postponed till the document has been held
proved; nor the document can be held to have been proved
merely because it has been marked as an exhibit;
Page 11 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
vi. India Spinners and Processors vs. Unity Prakashan Pvt. Ltd.
RFA No. 32/2004 decided on 28.08.2006 setting aside
judgment of dismissal and remanding the matter to Trial Court
with direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity
to plaintiff to produce entire evidence;
vii. Krishna Murari Lal Sharma vs. Dhan Prakash & Ors. 1981
(SLT SOFT) 10 allowing appeal against order of dismissal on
the ground that appellant was absent at the hearing of the appeal
and failed to take steps to prosecute the appeal and
viii. Teofilo Barreto vs. Sadashiva G. Nasnodkar & Ors. 2007 (4)
BomCR 830 disputing valuation of suit for the purpose of
jurisdiction and court fee wherein it was held appeal being
continuation of the suit, the valuation will govern appeal as well
and for the purposes of forum of appeal.
17. Respondent's counsels, per contra, have contended that
plaintiff's suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of wrong valuation of suit as
deficient court fee can be filed at appellate stage after proper valuation of
relief for recovery of possession as per Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees
Act, 1870 and filed application along with deficient court fee of Rs. 930/
calculated on the basis of annual rent of tenanted premises.
18. It is apt to note at the outset that defendant's contention claiming
himself as bonafide purchaser on the basis of 'Memorandum Of
Understanding' dated 16.01.2018 entered with plaintiff's husband and
pendency of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell / memorandum
of understanding are neither relevant nor necessary for deciding plaintiff's suit
Page 12 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
for possession and recovery of arrears of rent on the basis of registered rent
agreement dated 09.10.2006 and defendant having paid Rs. 1,00,00,000/
towards sale consideration against loan liability of plaintiff's husband is
already pursuing his remedy in Civil Court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and
before DRT, New Delhi.
19. It is well settled law that a tenant has no right to remain in
occupation of the premises or retain possession of the premises merely
because of an agreement to sell in his favour as held by Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in para No. 11 and 16 of its judgment titled "Sunil Kapoor Vs.
Himmat Singh and Ors." 2010 II AD (Delhi) 463. Relevant extract of the
judgment is reproduced below for reference:
"11. A mere agreement to sell of immovable property
does not create any right in the property save the right to
enforce the said agreement. Thus, even if the
respondents/plaintiffs are found to have agreed to sell the
property, the petitioner/defendant would not get any right
to occupy that property as an agreement purchaser. This
Court in Jiwan Das Vs. Narain Das AIR 1981 Delhi 291
has held that in fact no rights enure to the agreement
purchaser, not even after the passing of a decree for
specific performance and till conveyance in accordance
with law and in pursuance thereto is executed. Thus in
law, the petitioner has no right to remain in occupation of
the premises or retain possession of the premises merely
because of the agreement to sell in his favour".
Page 13 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata
RCA No. 122/17
...................
"(16) Once that is found to be the position in law, the defence of the agreement to sell is not a legal defence available to the petitioner in the suit for ejectment. If that be so, there is no common question involved in the previously instituted suit for specific performance and the subsequently instituted suit for ejectment".
20. Similar observations were recorded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para No. 14 of judgment titled "Shiv Kumar vs. Sumit Gulati" 225 (2015) Delhi Law Times 591:
"14. The status of the appellants' possession of the suit property continues to be as that of a tenant. This being the position, it cannot be said that the relationship between the parties - as that of landlord and tenant, came to an end when the alleged agreement to sell is claimed to have been executed. The rights and obligations of the parties continued to be governed by the said relationship of landlord and tenant, even post the alleged execution of the agreement to sell. Thus, the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to claim the relief of possession on the premise that he is the landlord of the appellant/defendant in the suit property and that the tenancy of the appellant stood terminate. It is not even the case of the appellant that the tenancy of the appellant did not stand terminated. No issue of maintainability of Page 14 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019 Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata RCA No. 122/17 the suit in the light of the bar contained in Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 arises in the present case. Consequently, the appellant does not have a valid grievance with the passing of a partial decree for ejectment on the basis of admission that the relationship of the parties qua the suit property was that of landlord and tenant."
21. Para No. 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment titled "Earthtech Enterprises Ltd. vs. Kuljit Singh Butalia" 199 (2013) Delhi Law Times 194 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being relevant is extracted hereinbelow for reference:
"11. In P.P.A. Impex (supra), the decree of possession passed by the Single Judge, on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code, has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. In the said case, defendant had claimed an independent right in the suit property pursuant to an agreement to sell. As per the defendant his defence could have been substantiated only during the trial and no decree on admission could have been passed. Division Bench found the defence of defendant to be moonshine. Division Bench observed thus "the Courts are already groaning under the weight of bludgeoning and exponentially increasing litigation. The weight will unvaryingly increase if moonshine defences are needlessly permitted to go to trial". In Om Wati (supra) Page 15 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019 Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata RCA No. 122/17 also, a decree of possession was passed in favour of the landlord on admission of tenant in the written statement cumcounter claim that she came in possession of the suit premise as a tenant, however, she set up a defence of agreement to sell. In this context, Division Bench of this Court held as under :
The defence of possession being protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the context of the alleged oral agreement was negated by the learned Single Judge holding that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would come into play only when there was a written agreement to sell under which possession was handed over and sale consideration paid. With respect of the defence taken, we must hold the same to be sham and of a kind which no Court of justice or equity would countenance. If these kinds of defences are to be permitted to be set up, it would create havoc in the society. Every tenant would start claiming that some relative of his or hers of he himself rendered some services of effected delivery of certain goods which was to be recompensated by way of sale consideration for the sale of the tenanted property.
12. Section 17(1) (A) of the Registration Act which has come into force with effect from 24 th September, 2001 reads as under:Page 16 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019
Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata RCA No. 122/17 Documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, they shall have no effect for the purpose of the said Section 53A.
13. A bare perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that a person can protect his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act on the plea of part performance only if it is armed with a registered document. Even on the basis of a written agreement he cannot protect his possession. In this case, plea of existing oral agreement has been set. In any event, in this case, appellant cannot protect his possession under the shield of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Even otherwise, mere agreement to sell of an immovable property, even if the plea of oral agreement is accepted for the sake of argument, would not create any right in favour of the tenantappellant to hold over the possession of the suit property."
22. It is, therefore, relevant to note that defendant has not disputed execution of registered rent agreement by plaintiff on 09.10.2006 rather he is claiming possession of second and third floors of the building on the basis of Page 17 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019 Surender Kumar Chadha vs. Smt. Asha Lata RCA No. 122/17 rent agreement and also filed application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 before DRT New Delhi along with tenant on the first floor of the building. Defendant Sh. Surender Kumar Chadha (appellant herein) cannot therefore continue to retain possession of tenanted premises on the basis of 'Memorandum Of Understanding' dated 16.01.2008 which was subsequently entered with plaintiff's husband Sh. Suresh Chander Chowdhary.
23. Defendant's contention w.r.t. wrong municipal number of tenanted premises does not require any interference by the Appellate Court as it is not the case of defendant that tenanted premises is different from the subject matter of suit for specific performance of 'Memorandum Of Understanding' dated 16.01.2008 which is pending at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
24. Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2007 passed by Ld. Trial Court is therefore upheld and appeal assailing judgment along with application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead evidence before Appellate Court is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
25. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
26. Trial Court Record be sent back to record room alongwith copy of this judgment.
27. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2019.05.06 16:23:50 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Tarun Yogesh) On 01.05.2019 ADJ03/South West Dwarka / New Delhi Page 18 of 18 DOD: 01.05.2019