Delhi District Court
Harish Lochave vs Babita Devi on 30 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA JINDAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-COMMERCIAL
CASES JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSW030018042017
CNR No. : DLSW03-001804-2017
CS SCJ No. : 1044/2017
Sh. Harish Lochave versus Smt. Babita Devi
Sh. Harish Lochave
S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh,
R/o Village-Bamnoli,
South-West Delhi,
New Delhi ........... Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Babita Devi,
W/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar,
R/o 3rd Floor, On Plot no. R-66,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
Services may be also affected at:
House No. 230, Z Block,
New Roshan Pura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. ......... defendant
Date of Institution of Suit : 13.10.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgement : 30.09.2024
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 1 of 70
Suit for Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent and
Damages/Mesne Profits.
JUDGEMENT
The Case
1. This Court is called upon to adjudicate a dispute concerning the property situated on the 3rd floor of Plot No. R-66, Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, now part of Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The Plaintiff and Defendant are at odds over the ownership and possession of this property.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that they are the lawful owner of the property, having acquired it from Mr. Krishan Kumar through a series of legal documents executed on October 6, 2015. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on October 13, 2016, but has defaulted on rental payments and continued to occupy the property beyond the lease term, which expired on September 12, 2017. The Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court for possession of the property, recovery of unpaid rent and utility charges, and damages for unauthorized occupation.
3. Conversely, the Defendant disputes any claim of ownership or tenancy asserted by the Plaintiff. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's suit is a baseless CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 2 of 70 attempt to seize the property unlawfully. The Defendant claims to be the rightful owner, having purchased the property from Smt. Seema Sharma on April 15, 2015, and asserts that the Plaintiff's claims are founded on fabricated and fraudulent documents. The Defendant further argues that no landlord-tenant relationship ever existed between the parties and that the lease agreement and claims for unpaid rent are entirely false.
4. The resolution of this matter necessitates a determination of the rightful ownership of the property, the validity of the alleged lease agreement, and the legitimacy of the claims for possession and damages advanced by both parties. This Court shall carefully consider the evidence and legal arguments to address these core issues.
The Proceedings: A Chronology
1. On 13.10.2017, the court recorded that a fresh suit for the recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and damages/mesne profits had been received by assignment. On 31.10.2017, after reviewing the case file and hearing the matter, the court issued summons to the defendant. On 20.02.2018, the defendant filed the written statement, and a copy was duly provided to the plaintiff. On 24.07.2018, the plaintiff filed a replication along with supporting documents, including a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and an Agreement to Sell.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 3 of 70
2. On 25.04.2019, the plaintiff produced two original rent agreements for the purpose of admission/denial. The defendant admitted to signing the documents and endorsement under her signatures as well as initials of the Learned Predecessor of this Court has also been made on both the said documents. The Court then framed the issues for the case. On 22.08.2019 and 14.10.2019, the plaintiff's witnesses were examined and cross-examined. On 14.10.2019, the plaintiff's evidence was concluded. On 06.03.2020, DW-1 and DW-2 were examined and cross- examined. DW-2 was found to have given false testimony, and the court issued a notice regarding potential penal proceedings under Section 181 read with Section 195 of the CrPC. On 11.04.2023 and on 17.02.2024, three defense witnesses one defense witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged. With no witnesses remaining to be examined, the court formally closed the DE.
3. On 09.04.2024, the court heard applications from both parties for summoning witnesses. In the interest of justice, the court granted both parties a final opportunity to summon their respective witnesses. On 23.07.2024, witnesses namely, Sh. K.R. Meena and Sh. Naresh Kumar, were examined and cross-examined. With no further witnesses remaining, both the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Evidence (PE and DE) were formally closed.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 4 of 70
4. The matter was then listed for final arguments. This Court has duly considered the final arguments presented by the Learned Counsel for both parties and has thoroughly examined the evidence on record in conjunction with the submissions made by the respective Learned Counsel.
Plaintiff's Case
5. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the property located on the 3rd floor of Plot No. R-66, Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, now part of the colony known as Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").
6. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from the previous owner, Mr. Krishan Kumar, son of Mr. Sat Narain. The transfer of ownership was formalized through an Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Will, and related documents, all executed on 06.10.2015. With the execution of these documents, all rights, title, and interest in the suit property vested with the plaintiff, making him the absolute owner.
7. In October 2016, the defendant approached the plaintiff, seeking to lease the suit property for residential purposes for herself and her family. The plaintiff agreed to lease the property at a monthly rent of ₹10,000, excluding CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 5 of 70 electricity and water charges, for a fixed term of 11 months. A Lease Deed/Rent Agreement dated 13.10.2016 was executed, outlining the terms and conditions of the tenancy, which was to commence on 13.10.2016 and terminate on 12.09.2017. The agreement stipulated that rent was payable in advance by the 13th day of each month, and the defendant was responsible for paying utility bills.
8. The defendant duly paid rent until 12.04.2017 but defaulted thereafter, failing to pay rent for the remaining five months, i.e., from 13.04.2017 to 12.09.2017. Despite repeated requests from the plaintiff, the defendant continuously delayed payment, citing various reasons. The plaintiff, in good faith, accommodated the defendant's requests for extensions.
9. The lease agreement, being for a fixed term of 11 months, expired on 12.09.2017 by efflux of time, thus terminating the tenancy. However, despite the expiration of the lease, the defendant failed to vacate the suit property or pay the outstanding rent. Repeated requests by the plaintiff for payment of arrears and vacation of the property went unheeded.
10.The defendant initially deposited ₹10,000 as an interest- free refundable security deposit, which was to be adjusted against any unpaid dues at the time of vacating the CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 6 of 70 property. Since the defendant has failed to pay rent for five months, after adjusting the security deposit, a sum of ₹40,000 remains outstanding. Additionally, the defendant owes ₹14,530 towards electricity charges, which is due as of 16.10.2017. The plaintiff is legally entitled to recover both the outstanding rent and utility charges from the defendant.
11.The plaintiff had clearly informed the defendant that her occupation beyond the expiry of the lease would be considered illegal and unauthorized. The plaintiff notified the defendant that in the event of failure to vacate, she would be liable to pay damages at the rate of ₹500 per day from 13.09.2017 until the property is vacated. Despite this, the defendant continues to illegally occupy the property.
12.The defendant's failure to vacate the property and clear the dues constitutes an illegal and unauthorized occupation. The plaintiff has no alternative but to seek redress from this Court by filing the present suit for possession, recovery of arrears, and damages/mesne profits. As the defendant remains in illegal occupation of the property beyond the expiry of the lease, she is liable to pay mesne profits/damages at the rate of ₹500 per day from 13.09.2017 until the date of vacating the property. This demand has been communicated to the defendant on several occasions. Considering the location and market conditions, the claimed amount of ₹500 per day as mesne CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 7 of 70 profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the property is fair and reasonable. The plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court orders an inquiry into mesne profits for the period from 13.09.2017 until possession is handed over, as per Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC.
13.The cause of action arose on 13.09.2017 when the defendant failed to vacate the property after the lease expired, and continues as the defendant remains in possession without paying rent or vacating the property. The suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and both parties reside in Delhi. Therefore, this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The plaintiff has valued the suit as follows: (a) For recovery of possession: ₹1,20,000 (annual rent). (b) For arrears of rent and electricity charges:
₹54,530. (c) For damages/mesne profits: ₹15,000 for one month @ ₹500 per day. The total value for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is ₹1,89,530, and appropriate court fees have been paid.
14.In light of the facts and circumstances presented, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court be pleased to grant a decree for possession of the Suit Property, directing the Defendant to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises to the Plaintiff. Additionally, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of arrears of rent amounting to ₹40,000/- and electricity dues of ₹14,530/-. The Plaintiff further CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 8 of 70 requests a decree for damages or mesne profits amounting to ₹15,000/- with interest for the Defendant's unauthorized occupation of the Suit Property from 13.09.2017 to 12.10.2017. The Plaintiff also prays for pendente lite and future mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit until the Defendant vacates the property, along with interest at 18% per annum, and requests that the costs of the suit be awarded in the Plaintiff's favor.
Defendant's Case
15.The suit filed by the Plaintiff is a sheer case of misuse of the process of law to grab the suit property which is in use, occupation and possession of the Defendant and the Plaintiff has nothing to do with suit property in any manner. There is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant of any nature whatsoever. The Defendant being the owner of the suit property is having his independent right over the same as owner thereof. There was /is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at any point of time as is alleged by the Plaintiff in the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
16.The suit of the Plaintiff is also not maintainable as the Plaintiff under the garb of the suit is in fact indirectly seeking the relief of declaration declaring himself as an owner of the suit property, which is not permitted in the CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 9 of 70 eyes of law and thus the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the Plaintiff has no locus standi qua the suit property and the Defendant is the lawful owner and in possession of the suit property and the Plaintiff is estopped to seek any relief of possession, recovery of damages/mesne profits and injunction against the Defendant and the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone. The suit of the plaintiff is misconceived, false, frivolous, and is an abuse of process of law. The plaint requires outright dismissal as there is no substance in the allegations contained in the entire suit. On the contrary, the fact remains, the suit of the plaintiff contains bundle of lies, untenable in the eyes of law and the plaint is liable to be rejected as provided under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
17.The suit of the Plaintiff is false, frivolous, and is an abuse of process of law. The suit of the Plaintiff is without any legal, binding and subsisting cause of action. The cause of action as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint is false and concocted one. The suit of the Plaintiff is based on fabricated and manipulated documents on the basis of which the Plaintiff claims himself to be the owner. The documents of ownership propounded by the Plaintiff on record are nothing but fraud and cheating and is filed to grab the valuable property of the Defendant by falsely alleging that he has purchased the suit property from Shri Krishan Kumar. It is submitted that even the vendor of the CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 10 of 70 Plaintiff namely Mr.Krishan Kumar had got no right, title and interest in the suit property and hence the question of executing any such alleged sale documents by said Mr.Krishan Kumar do not confer any right, title and interest in favour of the Plaintiff qua the suit property in any manner and thus the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone.
18.The suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the Plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from this Court thereby claiming falsely her right, title and interest in the suit property. The plaintiff has filed the present false and frivolous suit on the basis of distorted facts so as to file and maintain the present suit. So, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone. It is submitted that Plaintiff has made totally false declarations in the present suit. The Plaintiff has claimed to be the owner of the suit property i.e. 3rd floor, on plot no.R-66, out of khasra no.60/7, village Hastal, colony known as Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, and the Plaintiff has further falsely alleged the Defendant as tenant qua the said premises at the alleged rate of rent of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Even the alleged lease deed /rent agreement dated 13.10.2016 as referred to and relied upon by the Plaintiff is also fabricated and manipulated one just to make out a false case against the Defendant. In fact, the Plaintiff in collusion with his associates have forged, fabricated and manipulated the alleged sale documents in his favour by CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 11 of 70 falsely showing Shri Krishan Kumar as vendor and he also manipulated the signatures of the Defendant on the alleged sale documents qua the suit property as well as alleged rent agreement. Thus, there was no occasion for the Defendant to sign the alleged sale documents qua his property in favor of the Plaintiff when the Defendant herself is the owner and in possession of the suit property in her own independent rights. The entire story put forth regarding the payment of Plaintiff alleged sale consideration is false, and misconceived one. Thus in this way, the Plaintiff not only played fraud with the Defendant but also committed the offences of cheating, fraud, forgery of documents and signatures thereby committing various non cognizable offences. The Defendant has already lodged a complaint against the Plaintiff for cheating and fraud etc. committed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for grabbing his property. The Plaintiff has also committed the offence of perjury by making such false declaration before this Court, by using such forged and fabricated documents in the judicial record showing as genuine as well as swearing a false affidavit on oath in respect of the false declaration and as such the Plaintiff has also made himself liable for perjury and other offences and the Defendant reserves his right to move a separate application U/S 340 read with Section 192 to 195 Cr.P.C. before this Court.
19.The suit of the Plaintiff is not properly valued and the requisite court fees have not been paid and affixed. The CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 12 of 70 value of the suit property is more than Rs. 20,00,000/- i.e. much beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that this Court has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. Even the Plaintiff is required to pay the requisite court fees as per the circle rate of the property. In the absence of any such non-payment of the requisite court fees on each relief, the suit of the Plaintiff must be rejected outrightly.
20.The suit of the Plaintiff is also hit by the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. The present suit is not the correct remedy available to the Plaintiff to seek the decree of possession etc. It is submitted that first of all, the Plaintiff has to seek a decree of declaration declaring himself to be the owner of the suit property, if he is having any such alleged ownership rights qua the suit property.
21.Without prejudice to his rights and contentions as well as without admitting the claim of the Plaintiff in any manner, it is submitted that the suit of the Plaintiff is legally not maintainable in the eyes of law as the alleged documents of ownership being relied upon by the Plaintiff are unregistered documents and the same do not confer any right, title and interest in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property and the same are also hit by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp. The suit is thus liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 13 of 70
22.The Defendant has been residing at the above-mentioned address along with her family members for a long period. The property in question is lawfully owned by the Defendant, and she exercises full ownership and possession rights over it. The Plaintiff's claim of ownership or any other interest in the property is unfounded and without any legal merit.
23.The Defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property, i.e., the 3rd floor, on Plot No. R-66, out of Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, Colony known as Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The property was purchased by the Defendant from Smt. Seema Sharma, W/o Sh. Prem Kumar Sharma, on 15.04.2015, for a total sale consideration of ₹16,50,000/-. The ownership of the Defendant is legitimate and has been established by legally binding documents, including a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Registered Will, and Receipt. The Defendant has been in possession of the property since the purchase and has been fulfilling all her obligations as the rightful owner.
24.The Defendant sought a loan of ₹4,00,000/- from Mr. Krishan Kumar, who assisted her financially, and, in return, certain property documents were temporarily handed over to Mr. Krishan Kumar. These documents were never intended to be used for transferring ownership CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 14 of 70 of the property. However, the Plaintiff falsely claims to have acquired ownership rights through an alleged transaction with Mr. Krishan Kumar, which never conferred any lawful title to the Plaintiff.
25.On 06.10.2015, Mr. Krishan Kumar took a loan of ₹4,00,000/- from the Plaintiff for a period of 66 months. The Plaintiff's claims regarding the transfer of ownership rights based on this transaction are fabricated. The Defendant merely allowed Mr. Krishan Kumar to manage certain financial transactions, but at no point was ownership of the property transferred to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has acted with malafide intentions, aiming to fraudulently usurp the property from the Defendant. The Plaintiff has misused certain signed papers and fabricated documents, including a rent agreement, to make false claims of ownership and to unlawfully obtain an electricity connection in his name.
26.The Defendant approached Mr. Krishan Kumar when the Plaintiff began making unlawful demands, threatening her to vacate the property prematurely and attempting to misuse the forged documents. Despite the Defendant's efforts to resolve the matter amicably, the Plaintiff continued to harass the Defendant, claiming false ownership of the property and attempting to force the Defendant to vacate.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 15 of 70
27.The Defendant reported the fraudulent acts of the Plaintiff to the relevant authorities, including a complaint to the electricity department regarding the false electricity connection procured by the Plaintiff. Despite complaints lodged on 18.07.2016 and 21.07.2017, no effective action was taken by the authorities. The Defendant has also lodged formal complaints against the Plaintiff's fraudulent activities.
28.The Plaintiff's actions are driven by a malicious intent to grab the Defendant's property through false documents and threats. The Defendant and her family have been living in the property as lawful owners, and any attempt by the Plaintiff to claim otherwise is baseless. The Defendant has been subjected to threats and harassment, and the Plaintiff has even threatened to implicate the Defendant in false criminal cases.
29.In November 2017, the Defendant received a notice/summons regarding the present suit, which was based on entirely fabricated claims that the Defendant was a tenant in the suit property. The Plaintiff falsely alleged that the Defendant was required to vacate the property despite her lawful ownership. The Plaintiff's claims of giving the Defendant a loan of ₹4,00,000/- are fabricated, and the Defendant has always acted within her legal rights regarding the property.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 16 of 70
30.The Plaintiff's intention has been dishonest from the beginning, as he used the loan transaction with Mr. Krishan Kumar as an excuse to fabricate ownership rights over the Defendant's property. The entire narrative presented by the Plaintiff in the suit is based on fraud, deceit, and manipulation of documents. The Defendant has taken appropriate legal action by filing complaints with the authorities, and the present suit is part of the Plaintiff's ongoing attempt to unlawfully seize the property.
31.The Defendant, aggrieved by the Plaintiff's illegal and fraudulent actions, lodged a complaint with the SHO, P.S. Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. When no legal action was taken by the authorities, the Defendant filed a complaint under Section 200 read with Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the Plaintiff. The complaint is currently pending trial before the Ld. M.M., Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
32.The Defendant has been the lawful owner of the property since 2015 and continues to reside there with her family. The Plaintiff has no legal right or title to the property and has been attempting to take possession of it through fraudulent means. The Plaintiff has concealed material facts from this Court and has distorted the true facts of the case in his favor.
33.The Plaintiff's claim of ownership over the 3rd floor, Plot No. R-66, Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, Mohan CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 17 of 70 Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, is false. The Plaintiff has not provided any valid legal documents to prove ownership. The Defendant asserts that she is the lawful owner of the property, with full rights over it. The Plaintiff has no standing to claim possession or ownership.
34.The alleged purchase of the suit property by the Plaintiff from Mr. Krishan Kumar is fabricated. Mr. Krishan Kumar never had any legal right, title, or interest in the property to transfer. The Defendant legally purchased the property from Smt. Seema Sharma on 15.04.2015, and any claim by the Plaintiff based on an agreement with Mr. Krishan Kumar is unfounded.
35.There was no rental agreement between the parties, and no relationship of landlord and tenant exists. The Defendant never approached the Plaintiff to rent the property. The so- called Rent Agreement dated 13.10.2016 is forged and has no legal basis. The Defendant has been in possession of the property as the lawful owner since April 2015. The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant paid rent is untrue. As the lawful owner, the Defendant has never acknowledged any tenancy relationship or paid any rent to the Plaintiff.
36.The Plaintiff has no right to demand that the Defendant vacate the property. The Defendant is the rightful owner, and any alleged Rent Agreement is fabricated. The Plaintiff has no legal standing to claim possession or CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 18 of 70 demand the vacation of the property. There is no basis for the Plaintiff's claims regarding unpaid rent or utility bills. Since no tenancy relationship exists, there is no question of non-payment. The Defendant has been paying utility bills directly as the lawful owner. The Plaintiff's claim of unpaid dues is based on fraudulent documents.
37.The Plaintiff unlawfully obtained an electricity connection using forged documents. The Defendant has taken steps to rectify this issue and lodged complaints with relevant authorities. The Plaintiff's claims regarding electricity dues are baseless. The Defendant is not in unlawful occupation of the property. As the lawful owner, the Defendant's possession is legitimate. The Plaintiff's claim for damages or mesne profits has no legal basis.
38.The Plaintiff has no grounds to request an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The Defendant's possession is lawful, and no damages or mesne profits are due. There is no cause of action for this suit. The Plaintiff's allegations are fabricated, and the suit is an abuse of the legal process. The Plaintiff has undervalued the suit property to bring it within the jurisdiction of this Court. The actual value exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The claims for possession and mesne profits are based on fabricated facts. The entire suit lacks merit and should be dismissed with costs.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 19 of 70
39.In view of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests this Court to Dismiss the suit with costs; Grant any other relief deemed appropriate.
Replication to the Written Statement
40.The plaintiff categorically denies that the present suit is a misuse of legal process or an attempt to seize the suit property. The defendant's claim to ownership of the suit property is entirely baseless. The relationship between the parties is clearly one of landlord and tenant, established through a valid rent agreement, and this is the core of the dispute. The plaintiff is not indirectly seeking a declaration of ownership but rather pursuing recovery of possession from the defendant, who was a tenant of the plaintiff. The defendant lacks the legal standing to challenge the title of the plaintiff within these proceedings.
41.The plaintiff asserts full locus standi concerning the suit property. The defendant is a tenant, and the plaintiff is fully entitled to seek possession, recovery of damages/mesne profits, and an injunction against the defendant. The defendant cannot challenge the plaintiff's title without first surrendering possession. The suit is entirely valid and legally maintainable. The plaintiff has clearly outlined the facts and has filed the suit based on a valid cause of action. The allegations of fraud or abuse of process are unsubstantiated and without merit.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 20 of 70
42.The plaintiff's claim is based on legitimate and valid documents, including a lawful purchase of the suit property from Sh. Krishan Kumar. The defendant's assertion that the documents are fraudulent is false and only serves to delay the eviction process. The suit is based on true and correct facts, with genuine documents presented before the court. The plaintiff has not concealed any material facts, and the reliefs sought are just and warranted in the circumstances. The plaintiff denies all allegations of forgery and fabrication. The lease deed dated 13.10.2016 is valid and was executed in good faith. The defendant's allegations of fraud, perjury, and false documentation are entirely unsubstantiated and intended to delay the proceedings.
43.The suit has been properly valued, and the appropriate court fees have been paid. This Court has the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the present matter. The plaintiff's suit is not barred by the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. The correct remedy has been sought, and the proceedings are properly instituted. The plaintiff's ownership documents, while unregistered due to local constraints on registration, are still valid. The defendant, as a tenant, has no right to challenge the plaintiff's ownership while continuing to occupy the suit property without vacating it.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 21 of 70
44.The plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property, having purchased it from Sh. Krishan Kumar. The allegations made by the defendant regarding loans from Smt. Seema Sharma are concocted and intended to mislead the court. The defendant's claims of loans and ownership through documents executed with Sh. Krishan Kumar are entirely false. The property was lawfully purchased by the plaintiff, and the defendant's contentions are baseless. The plaintiff never took a loan from Sh. Krishan Kumar. The documents executed on 06.10.2015 were related to the lawful purchase of the property, not a loan transaction.
45.The plaintiff lawfully purchased the suit property on 06.10.2015, and the lease deed executed on 13.10.2016 was entered into voluntarily by the defendant, following the expiration of a previous lease. The defendant's allegations are false. The plaintiff reiterates ownership of the suit property, having lawfully purchased it from Sh. Krishan Kumar. The defendant, as a tenant, has no right to challenge the plaintiff's title without first vacating the premises. The plaintiff lawfully purchased the suit property, and all claims of loan transactions between Sh. Krishan Kumar and the defendant are false and irrelevant to the present suit.
46.The lease agreement dated 13.10.2016 was validly executed, and the defendant's claims of forgery and signing blank documents are without merit. The CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 22 of 70 defendant's occupation of the suit property is as a tenant, not an owner, and the lease has expired. The defendant's continued occupation is unlawful. The lease agreement was executed in good faith, and the plaintiff's claim is based on valid, legal ownership of the property. The defendant's claims of ownership are false. The plaintiff denies all allegations of fraud or forgery. The defendant is a tenant and has no lawful claim to the suit property beyond the expired lease agreement. The defendant's assertion of ownership is groundless, and the lease agreement was executed lawfully. The plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property.
47.In view of the above, the plaintiff respectfully submits that this Court may kindly decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting possession of the suit property, along with the other reliefs sought. The plaintiff further requests a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC based on the admissions made by the defendant.
Determination of Issues
48.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues are were settled:
1. Whether the signatures of defendant on the agreements dt. 20.10.15 & 13.10.16 were obtained by plaintiff at the time of taking of loan of Rs CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 23 of 70 4,00,000/- by Sh Krishan Kumar from the plaintiff and by the defendant from Sh. Krishan Kumar? OPD
2. Whether the defendant is residing in the suit property in her own independent right and not as a tenant of plaintiff? OPD.
3. Whether the suit property has been let out by the plaintiff to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs 10,000/-?OPP
4. Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs 40,000/- and electricity charges to the extent of Rs. 14,530/- towards the plaintiff? OPP.
5. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued by the plaintiff for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit property against the defendant? OPP
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits/damages if so at what rate and for what period? OPP CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 24 of 70
8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs 40,000/- and electricity charges to the extent of Rs. 14,530/-
against the defendant? OPP
9. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
49.The plaintiff, in order to substantiate the claims and secure relief, examined a total of six witnesses, including three summoned witnesses. The plaintiff himself deposed as PW-1, with Sh. Ram Chander Dagar, a relative of the plaintiff, appearing as PW-2, and Sh. Sandeep Dahiya, a friend of the plaintiff, testifying as PW-3. The summoned witnesses included Sh. Ajay Kumar, Record Keeper in the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Janak Puri, New Delhi, who testified as PW-4; Sh. Sukhbir Singh Sangwan, Field Associate in the BSES Division at Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, who deposed as PW-5; and Sh. K.R. Meena, Mauza Clerk, Record Room (Criminal), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, who appeared as PW-6.
PW-1/Plaintiff
50.PW-1/Plaintiff tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit marked as Ex. PW1/A, duly signed at points A & B. He relied upon the following documents:
Site Plan: Ex.PW1/1CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 25 of 70 Lease Deed dated 20.10.2015: Ex.PW1/2 Lease Deed dated 13.10.2016: Ex.PW1/3 Copy of Electricity Bill: Mark A Evidence by way of affidavit of PW-1
51.Through Evidence Affidavit it is stated that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the property situated on the 3rd Floor, Plot No. R-66, out of Khasra No. 60/7, in Village Hastal, now part of Mohan Garden Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property"). The said property is clearly demarcated in red in the site plan already on record. The plaintiff purchased the Suit Property from its previous owner, Sh. Krishan Kumar, son of Sh. Sat Narain, through an Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, and Will, all dated 06.10.2015. Upon the execution of these documents, the full right, title, and interest in the Suit Property were transferred to the plaintiff, making him the absolute owner of the property.
52.Initially, the defendant had taken the Suit Property on rent from the plaintiff on 20.10.2015 under a registered Rent Agreement dated 20.10.2015, duly registered with the Sub- Registrar, Janakpuri, under Registration No. 15,689, Book No. 1, Volume No. 926, on pages 158 to 160, on 23.10.2015, for a period of 11 months from 23.10.2015 to 22.09.2016. The defendant vacated the premises after the CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 26 of 70 expiry of this lease. In October 2016, the defendant again approached the plaintiff, requesting to lease the Suit Property for accommodation purposes for herself and her family. The plaintiff agreed to lease the property for a fixed term of 11 months, at a monthly rent of ₹10,000, exclusive of electricity and water charges. A Lease Deed/Rent Agreement dated 13.10.2016 was executed between the parties, with the tenancy period commencing from 13.10.2016 and expiring on 12.09.2017. The defendant was responsible for paying electricity and water charges as per the meter readings or bills issued by the concerned authorities.
53.The defendant continued to reside in the Suit Property, paying rent regularly until 12.04.2017. However, from 13.04.2017 onwards, the defendant failed to pay the agreed rent of ₹10,000 per month, leaving the rent unpaid for the remaining five months of the tenancy period, i.e., from 13.04.2017 to 12.09.2017. Despite multiple requests made by the plaintiff to the defendant to clear the outstanding rent, the defendant continuously delayed the payment, providing various excuses. The plaintiff granted the defendant ample time to fulfill her obligations, but she failed to settle the dues. In addition to the rent arrears, there is an outstanding electricity bill of ₹14,530 as on 16.10.2017 for the Suit Property, which the defendant is legally obligated to pay either to the plaintiff or directly to CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 27 of 70 the concerned authority, BSES Rajdhani. The plaintiff is entitled to recover this amount from the defendant.
54.The plaintiff had repeatedly requested the defendant to vacate the Suit Property after the expiry of the Lease Deed on 12.09.2017. The plaintiff further informed the defendant that any continued occupation of the premises would be deemed illegal, and the defendant would be liable to pay damages at the rate of ₹500 per day. Despite these requests, the defendant has failed to vacate the property, rendering her occupation illegal and unauthorized.The defendant is legally obliged to vacate the Suit Property and hand over peaceful possession. However, her failure to do so after the expiration of the lease agreement has compelled the plaintiff to approach this Hon'ble Court to seek the necessary relief. For her continued unlawful occupation, the defendant is liable to pay damages of ₹500 per day, starting from 13.09.2017 until she vacates the Suit Property and hands over possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also seeks direction from this Hon'ble Court to conduct an inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC to determine the mesne profits and damages due from the defendant for the period from 13.09.2017 until she vacates the Suit Property.
55.The suit filed by the plaintiff is based on true and correct facts, and the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought therein. The contents of this affidavit are true and correct CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 28 of 70 to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge and belief. The affidavit has been drafted under the plaintiff's instructions and read over to the plaintiff.
Cross Examination of PW-1
56.PW-1 testified that he holds an MBA degree and can read, write, and understand English. He confirmed that after purchasing the suit property from Krishan Kumar, he did not reside in it, not even for a single day. His permanent residence is House No. 19, Bamnoli Village, New Delhi, and he continues to reside there even before and after filing the current suit.
57.PW-1 further stated that at the time of purchasing the suit property, Krishan Kumar had executed the necessary documents, including an agreement to sell, an affidavit, a receipt, a possession letter, and a Will, in his favor. Additionally, Krishan Kumar handed over the complete chain of title documents pertaining to the suit property. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had executed any further documents with Krishan Kumar, including a mortgage deed.
58.PW-1 clarified that he had not issued any rent receipts to the defendant for rent payments, but testified that Ram Chander, who facilitated the tenancy, witnessed the payment of the first month's rent by the defendant.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 29 of 70 However, PW-1 could not recall the exact date of this payment. He denied the suggestion that Ram Chander did not witness the payment. PW-1 affirmed that no rent had been paid by the defendant since April 13, 2017. He further testified that he had not paid any electricity or water bills for the suit property except for clearing the arrears at the time of purchasing the property.
59.Regarding the structure of the property, PW-1 mentioned that the property has ground plus four floors, but the first floor is treated as the ground floor in the documentation. He confirmed that he had obtained vacant possession of the suit property, denying claims that he never visited the property to collect rent from the defendant. PW-1 could not remember whether the title documents executed by Krishan Kumar contained double stamping on two different dates. PW-1 denied all suggestions that the documents executed by Krishan Kumar lacked attesting witnesses and that the defendant never rented the property from him. He maintained that his testimony is truthful, rejecting allegations of false deposition.
PW-2/ Sh. Ram Chander Dagar/Relative of the plaintiff
60.PW-2, Sh. Ram Chander Dagar, S/o Sh. Kashi Ram, tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit, exhibited as Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signatures at points A & B. PW-2 refers to the rent agreement, already exhibited as Ex.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 30 of 70 PW1/2, bearing his signatures at point B. However, PW-2 stated that he cannot identify the signatures of the other parties on the said agreement since he did not witness them signing it, as he was sitting at some distance from them.
Evidence by way of affidavit of PW-2
61.It is stated that PW-2 is well-acquainted with Sh. Harish Lochave, the Plaintiff in this case, as Sh. Lochave is a relative of PW-2. PW-2 can attest that the Plaintiff purchased the property located on the 3rd Floor of Plot No. R-66, Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, now part of Mohan Garden Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059, from Sh. Krishan Kumar, son of Sat Narain. PW-2 was present as a witness during this transaction, which was formalized through an Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, and Will, all dated October 6, 2015.
62.On October 20, 2015, the Defendant, Smt. Babita, entered into a rental agreement with the Plaintiff for the property. This agreement was registered with SR-11B, Janakpuri, under Registration No. 15,689, in Book No. 1, Volume No. 926, on pages 158 to 160, on October 23, 2015. The agreement specified a rental term of 11 months, commencing from October 23, 2015, and ending on September 22, 2016. PW-2 was present as one of the attesting witnesses to this agreement. The Defendant signed the agreement in the presence of PW-2, and her CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 31 of 70 signatures appear at point "A" on all four pages of the document. PW-2 also signed as a witness, and the signatures of PW-2 are on two of the pages, marked at point "B."
63.The agreed rental amount was Rs. 10,000/- per month, excluding electricity and water charges, for the fixed term of 11 months. PW-2 was present during the negotiations and witnessed the Defendant paying the advance rent of Rs. 10,000/- to the Plaintiff. PW-2 affirms that the contents of this affidavit are true and accurate to the best of his knowledge. This affidavit was prepared by the Plaintiff's counsel based on the instructions provided by PW-2.
Cross Examination of PW-2
64.PW-2 states that the plaintiff, Mr. Harish Lochave, is the brother-in-law of his son. The rent agreement Ex. PW1/2 was executed for a period of 11 months. PW-2 does not know the rate of rent agreed between the parties, as he did not review the contents of the agreement and only signed it as a witness. PW-2 confirms that besides him, Mr. Krishan, who was his tenant, was also present at the time of the agreement's execution and had signed Ex. PW1/2. However, PW-2 mentions his inability to identify Mr. Krishan's signature. PW-2 denies the suggestion that Mr. Krishan had not signed the rent agreement Ex. PW1/2. PW-2 is unaware of who else signed the agreement apart CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 32 of 70 from himself and Mr. Krishan. Furthermore, PW-2 has no knowledge of the other documents--GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter, and Will--all dated 06.10.2015, through which the property was allegedly sold by Mr. Krishan to Mr. Harish Lochave.
65.No sale consideration was exchanged between the parties in PW-2's presence during the execution of the documents dated 06.10.2015. Based on his information, the consideration might have been Rs. 8 to 10 lakhs, though PW-2 is uncertain about this figure. PW-2 denies the suggestion that he was unaware of the nature of the documents at the time of signing them. During the execution of the documents dated 06.10.2015, PW-2 confirms that Mr. Harish Lochave, the defendant Ms. Babita, Mr. Krishan, and PW-2 himself were present. PW- 2 does not know if anyone else was there. PW-2 also cannot confirm whether stamp duty was paid for the execution of the documents dated 06.10.2015 or for the rent agreement Ex. PW1/2.
66.PW-2 states that Mr. Krishan never lodged any police complaint against him as a tenant. However, PW-2 recalls one instance where Mr. Krishan filed a complaint against him when PW-2 visited Mr. Krishan to demand rent for PW-2's property. PW-2 does not recall the exact rent rate mentioned in his affidavit. PW-2 denies the suggestion that he is giving false testimony without knowledge of his CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 33 of 70 affidavit's contents and refutes the claim that his testimony is influenced by his familial relationship with Mr. Harish Lochave.
PW-3/Sh. Sandeep Dahiya/Friend of the Plaintiff
67.PW-3 has tendered evidence through his affidavit, Ex. PW3/A, bearing his signatures at points A & B. He has relied upon the rent agreement already exhibited as Ex. PW1/3, bearing his signatures at point C. PW-3 identifies only the signatures of the plaintiff, Harish Lochave, besides his own, which are at point A. He states that he cannot identify the signatures of the defendant or the other witness, and further admits that he does not even know the name of the other witness.
Evidence by way of affidavit of PW-3
68.PW-3 has known Mr. Harish Lochave, the plaintiff in the present case, since their college days, as a close friend. PW-3 affirms that the suit property, which is the 3rd Floor of Plot No. R-66, Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, now part of the Mohan Garden colony in Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059, is owned by Mr. Lochave. On 13.10.2016, a Rent Agreement was executed between Mr. Lochave and the defendant, Smt. Babita, for renting the aforementioned property. The agreed monthly rent was ₹10,000, excluding electricity and water charges, for a fixed period of 11 CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 34 of 70 months. PW-3 was present as one of the attesting witnesses to this agreement. The Rent Agreement bears the signatures of Smt. Babita at point "A" on all pages, the plaintiff's signatures at point "B" on all pages, and PW-3's signatures at point "C" on two pages. PW-3 confirms that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and understanding, and that it has been drafted by the plaintiff's counsel based on PW-3's instructions.
Cross Examination of PW-3
69.PW-3 affirms that he holds a B.Tech degree and has known the plaintiff, Harish Lochave, since their college days. He admits that he does not know when Harish Lochave purchased the suit property. He further confirms that he has not signed any other documents for Harish Lochave as an attesting witness, apart from the rent agreement Ex. PW1/3. He states that while he frequently meets with the plaintiff, he has never been informed whether Harish Lochave had rented out the suit property to anyone else prior to the execution of the rent agreement, Ex. PW1/3. PW-3 also mentions that he did not appear before the Sub-Registrar for the registration of the rent agreement Ex. PW1/3 but recalls appearing before a notary public. He cannot recall the name of the notary public but knows that they are based in Dwarka Court. PW-3 also confirms that he signed the register of the notary public.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 35 of 70 He further testifies that besides himself, PW-2 also signed the rent agreement Ex. PW1/3 as an attesting witness. He admits that he has never visited the premises that were subject to the rent agreement Ex. PW1/3. PW-3 denies the suggestion that he is deposing falsely on behalf of his friend, Harish Lochave.
Summoned Witnesses PW-4/ Sh. Ajay Kumar/ Record Keeper in the office of Sub- Registrar-II, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
70.In response to the summons, PW-4, Sh. Ajay Kumar, son of Baljeet, aged 31 years and residing at WZ-315, 80 Yards, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, has presented himself as a witness. He is employed as a Record Keeper in the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Janak Puri, New Delhi. Ajay Kumar has brought the original registration records related to the rent agreement dated 20.10.2015, executed between Harish Lochave and Babita Devi. This document was registered under serial no. 15689 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 926, spanning pages 158 to 160, and was formally registered on 23.10.2015. A copy of this rent agreement has been marked and exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A, subject to official scrutiny.
Cross Examination of PW-4 CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 36 of 70
71.Despite being given the opportunity, PW-4 was not cross examined by the Learned Counsel for the defendant. PW-5/ Sh. Sukhbir Singh Sangwan/ Field Associate in the BSES Division at Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
72.PW-5, Sh. Sukhbir Singh Sangwan, who was employed as a Field Associate in the BSES Division at Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi presented the record pertaining to the application made by Mr. Harish Lochave for the transfer of the electricity connection with Consumer Account (CA) No. 151271282 into his name. The relevant documents are collectively marked as Ex. PW5/A (OSR). Upon review by the court, it was observed that all the title documents associated with this application were mere photocopies and were neither self-attested nor attested by any notary public.
Cross Examination of PW-5
73.PW-5 was questioned about his knowledge of a letter purportedly given by Sh. Krishan Kumar, a relative of the defendant, to the BSES under DD No. 463, dated 18.07.2016, requesting that the electricity connection for the suit property not be transferred to the plaintiff's name. He responded that he was unaware of such a letter. Similarly, when asked about another letter allegedly given by Sh. Krishan Kumar under DD No. 72, dated 21.04.2017, with the same request, PW-5 again stated he CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 37 of 70 did not know whether BSES received such letters or took any action regarding them. PW-5 denied the suggestion that his seniors had transferred the electricity meter for the suit property to the plaintiff's name in collusion with the plaintiff, and he also denied that he was testifying falsely.
PW-6 /Sh. K.R. Meena, Mauza Clerk, Record Room (Criminal), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
74.PW-6, presented the case file record of Criminal Complaint No. 25404/2017 titled "Babita Devi v. Harish Lochave," which was decided by the Ld. ACMM, Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, on 27.06.2020. With the permission of the Court, PW-6 submitted photocopies of the complaint and the final order dated 27.06.2020 passed by Ld. ACMM Sh. Arun Kumar Garg in the aforementioned case. These documents have been exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A (OSR) (colly.).
Cross Examination. of PW-6
75.Despite being given the opportunity, PW-4 was not cross examined by the Learned Counsel for the defendant.
Defendant's Evidence DW-1/Defendant CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 38 of 70
76.DW-1 submits evidence through an affidavit, exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1, which includes her signatures at points A & B. The documents relied upon are:
Copy of DW-1's Aadhar card: Ex. DW-1/2 (OSR) Copy of the ownership title documents: Mark A (colly) Copy of the mortgage deed: Mark B (three pages) Copy of the electricity bill dated 09.11.2017: Mark C Copies of two complaints dated 18.07.2016 and 21.04.2017: Mark D (colly) Copy of the notice dated 11.12.2017: Mark E Copy of the complaint to the SHO, PS Uttam Nagar: Mark F Evidence by way of affidavit of DW-1
77.It is stated that DW-1 is the rightful owner of the property described as 3rd Floor, Plot No. R-66, Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi- 110059. This property was purchased from Seema Sharma, wife of Sh. Prem Kumar Sharma, for a total consideration of Rs. 16,50,000/- on 15.04.2015. Seema Sharma provided DW-1 with a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- for a period of 36 months. The sale documents, including the General Power of Attorney (GPA), agreement to sell, registered Will, and receipt, were executed in favor of DW-1, while the original documents were retained by Seema Sharma as collateral.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 39 of 70 Subsequently, DW-1 approached Mr. Krishan Kumar for a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/, which he arranged. On 06.10.2015, DW-1 provided the original property documents to Mr. Krishan Kumar and executed transfer documents in his favor. On the same date, Mr. Krishan Kumar obtained a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the plaintiff, Harish Lochave.
A mortgage deed was executed on 06.10.2015, documented on stamp paper No. IN- DL67314346273113N, in the presence of witness
Ramchander Dagar. Notably, the mortgage deed was not notarized by the plaintiff, and the amount lent was not specified in the deed.
78.Following the receipt of the loan, DW-1 repaid Seema Sharma Rs. 2,00,000/- and retrieved the original property documents. These were then handed over to the plaintiff, who also procured DW-1's and the defendant's signatures on some blank papers. The plaintiff's intentions were fraudulent from the outset. The plaintiff threatened DW-1 to return the loan amount prematurely and misused the signed papers to obtain an electricity connection in his name. After obtaining the electricity connection through fraudulent means, the plaintiff threatened DW-1 to vacate the property or face severe consequences. The plaintiff claimed to have influential contacts and threatened to implicate DW-1's family in false criminal cases.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 40 of 70
79.Despite complaints lodged with the electricity department on 18.07.2016 and 21.04.2017 regarding the fraudulent electricity connection, no action was taken. DW-1, feeling aggrieved by the plaintiff's actions, first lodged a complaint with the SHO, P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi. When no action was taken, DW-1 filed a complaint under Section 200 r/w Section 156 against the plaintiff, which is pending trial before the Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts. It is evident that DW-1 is a victim of the plaintiff's deceitful actions. The plaintiff, using forged and fabricated documents, seeks to unlawfully claim ownership of the property. DW-1 is the rightful owner of the property, and the plaintiff has no legitimate claim. The plaintiff's suit is based on false and misleading facts aimed at unlawfully acquiring DW-1's property. DW-1 requests that the suit be dismissed as the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The statements made herein are true and correct to the best of DW-1's knowledge and belief.
Cross Examination of DW-1
80.During Cross Examination, DW-1 confirms that the original mortgage deed has been filed in the record and asserts that it is incorrect to suggest that no such mortgage deed was ever executed. DW-1 refutes the claim that no title documents were executed by Krishan Kumar in favor of the plaintiff on 06.10.2015. DW-1 disputes the claim that the plaintiff rented the property to her via a registered CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 41 of 70 rent agreement dated 23.10.2015, with the lease expiring on 22.09.2016, and that she vacated the property at that time. DW-1 also denies entering into a new rent agreement dated 13.10.2016, paying Rs. 10,000 per month in cash until 12.04.2017. DW-1 denies that the affidavit incorrectly states that the plaintiff obtained her signature on blank documents. DW-1 refutes the claim that the plaintiff purchased the property from Krishan Kumar. DW-1 asserts that the affidavit does not falsely state that the plaintiff acquired the electricity connection based on forged documents. DW-1 states that she has never lodged a police complaint against the plaintiff. DW-1 contests the assertion that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property and that DW-1 is merely a tenant in arrears or illegally occupying the property. DW-1 maintains that she is not deposing falsely.
DW-2/Relative of the Defendant.
81.DW-2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, exhibited as Ex. DW2/1, with his signatures appearing at points A and B. He relies on the following documents:
A copy of his driving license: Ex. DW2/2 (OSR) Copies of complaints dated 18.07.2016 and 21.04.2017, previously marked as Mark D (colly) in the testimony of DW-1.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 42 of 70 A copy of the mortgage deed, previously marked as Mark B in the testimony of DW-1.
Evidence by way of affidavit of DW-2
82.It is stated that DW-2 is well acquainted with the facts of the case and is competent to depose through this affidavit. DW-2 is a relative of the defendant. The defendant is the owner of the suit property, i.e., the third floor of Plot No. R-66, out of Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, Colony known as Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, which was purchased from Smt. Seema Sharma W/o Sh. Prem Kumar Sharma for a total sale consideration of ₹16,50,000 on 15.04.2015. Smt. Seema Sharma advanced a loan of ₹2,00,000 to the defendant for a period of 36 months and executed the sale documents, including the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Registered Will, and receipt in favor of the defendant. The sale documents were retained by Smt. Seema Sharma as security for the loan, with the agreement that upon repayment of the loan after 36 months, she would execute the registered sale documents in favor of the defendant.
83.After some time, the defendant approached DW-2 and requested a loan of ₹4,00,000. DW-2 arranged the loan CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 43 of 70 and, on 06.10.2015, the defendant handed over the original property documents to DW-2 and executed transfer documents in DW-2's favor. On 06.10.2015, DW-2 took a loan of ₹4,00,000 from the plaintiff for a period of 66 months, and a Mortgage Deed was executed between DW- 2 and the plaintiff on that date. The deed was drafted on stamp paper no. IN-DL67314346273113N and was signed in the presence of a witness, namely Ramchander Dagar. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff intentionally and deliberately did not notarize the documents, for reasons best known to him. Moreover, the mortgage deed did not specify the amount lent to DW-2.
84.After receiving the loan amount from the plaintiff, DW-2 handed the balance amount of ₹2,00,000 to Smt. Seema Sharma on 06.10.2015. The original property documents were then retrieved from Smt. Seema and given to the plaintiff through DW-2. The plaintiff also obtained the signatures of the defendant and DW-2 on certain blank papers. The plaintiff's intentions were malafide from the outset, and the plaintiff, with dishonest motives to usurp the defendant's property, began threatening the defendant to repay the loan before the agreed time. The plaintiff misused the signed papers of the defendant and, by forging and fabricating documents, procured an electricity connection in his name, bearing CA No. 151271282. The defendant informed DW-2 of these developments. When DW-2 confronted the plaintiff, the plaintiff declared that CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 44 of 70 the property now belonged to him and that the defendant had to vacate it. The plaintiff also claimed to have influential contacts, making it impossible for the defendant to take any action against him.
85.The plaintiff obtained the electricity connection based on false and fabricated documents on 18.07.2016. Consequently, DW-2 lodged a complaint with the electricity department against the plaintiff, vide entry no. 463, but no action was taken. Another complaint was submitted on 21.04.2017, but again, no action was taken. The above-mentioned facts are true and correct to the best of DW-2's knowledge.
Cross Examination of DW-2
86.DW-2 asserts that ExPW1/3 does not bear his signature. He refutes the suggestion that ExPW1/3 includes his signature at point B or his thumb impression at point C. He also denies having acted as an attesting witness to ExPW1/3. DW-2 acknowledges that ExPW1/3 does have his signature at point D. Although he has never acted as an attesting witness to any rent agreement, DW-2 cannot explain how his signature appears on ExPW1/3 at point D. DW-2 states that he has completed his education up to the 12th standard and has basic English language skills. He is unsure where ExDW2/1 (the affidavit) was prepared. Initially, he denies that ExDW2/1 bears his signature but CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 45 of 70 later admits that if the affidavit was prepared by his counsel, it might bear his signature. The Court observes that DW-2, after initially denying the signature on the affidavit, later admits it could be his. He is informed about the consequences of providing false evidence. DW-2 denies the suggestion that he is unaware of the case details and that he is deposing falsely.
Summoned Witnesses DW-3/ Smt. Seema Sharma/ acquaintance with the defendant
87.DW-3, Smt. Seema Sharma, wife of Sh. Prem Kumar Sharma, residing at House No. 4 & 5, P Extension, Part I, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, appeared as a summoned witness in the present matter. DW-3 confirmed her acquaintance with the defendant and testified that she had sold the property bearing No. R-66, 3rd Floor, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, to the defendant. DW-3 affirmed that she was the lawful owner of this property at the time of the sale.
88.Attention was then drawn to several documents marked as Mark A (colly. pages 1 to 8), Mark B, and Mark C. DW-3 stated that these documents, including the General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, and Will, all dated 15.04.2015, represent the transaction by which she transferred the property to the defendant. These documents pertain to CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 46 of 70 property No. R-66, out of Khasra No. 60/7, located in the Revenue Estate of Village Hastal, in the Abadi known as Mohan Garden, Block R, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. DW-3 further filed photocopies of these documents, which were marked collectively as Mark DW-2/1 (colly.). DW-3, however, could not confirm whether the defendant is currently residing in the property or has been residing there since the inception of the transaction. She did confirm that she had handed over the complete original chain of documents related to the property to the defendant.
Cross Examination of DW-3
89.During cross-examination conducted by Sh. Ashok Kaushik, learned counsel for the plaintiff, no questions were posed to DW-3. The court granted an opportunity for cross-examination; however, it was not availed. Accordingly, the testimony of DW-3 remained unchallenged.
DW-4/Sh. Sai Dass Bhatia, JA, Record Room (Civil), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
90.DW-4, a summoned witness in the present matter, appeared in court in response to the summons. DW-4 brought with him the relevant records pertaining to Criminal Complaint No. 25404/2017, PS Uttam Nagar, filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C and 156(3) Cr.P.C. The CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 47 of 70 case, titled Babita Devi v. Harish Lochave, was adjudicated by Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, the then Learned ACMM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, on 27.06.2020. DW- 4 presented the summoning order dated 27.06.2020 as part of the evidence, which was collectively marked as Exhibit DW-4/1, comprising 11 pages. Additionally, DW-4 submitted the status report that had been filed by ASI Manoj Kumar, which was exhibited as Exhibit DW-4/2, a document spanning 3 pages. Furthermore, the list of documents presented in the aforementioned case was collectively marked as Mark DW-4/X. Cross Examination of DW-4
91.No questions were posed by the plaintiff's side, despite an opportunity being given.
DW-5/ASI Manoj Kumar, No. 3024/DW, PS Dwarka North.
92.DW-5 states that he is a summoned witness in the present matter and confirms that he conducted an enquiry in relation to Complaint Case No. 25404/2017, PS Uttam Nagar, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., titled Babita Devi v. Harish Lochave. DW-5 further testifies that he filed the Action Taken Report before the court on 02.02.2018 in the aforesaid matter, which has already been exhibited as Ex. DW-4/2 (colly).
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 48 of 70 He also confirms that the signatures appearing at points A to B on the said report belong to him.
Cross Examination of DW-5
93.During Cross examination, DW-5 acknowledged that despite conducting the enquiry, he was unable to reach any conclusive findings. He further admitted that the above- referenced complaint case has since been dismissed by the court.
DW-6/Ct. Kuldeep, No. 1104/DW, PS Uttam Nagar, South West, New Delhi.
94.DW-6, testified that he has brought the relevant record concerning PCR calls made on 13.10.2016. However, he clarified that the said calls did not fall within the jurisdiction of PS Uttam Nagar but pertained to the jurisdiction of PS Bindapur. Thus, the records concerning these calls belong to PS Bindapur and are not maintained at PS Uttam Nagar.
Cross Examination of DW-6
95.No cross-examination. Opportunity granted but not availed.
DW-7/Ms. Draupadi Bir CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 49 of 70
96.DW-7 stated that she had brought the Notary register where the Rent Agreement between Sh. Harish Lochave and Ms. Babita Devi, dated 13.10.2016, was entered at Serial No. 539. However, the notarial attestation of the aforesaid document could not be completed due to a dispute that arose between both parties during the notarization process. DW-7 clarified that while her notarial stamp is inscribed on the document at Point A (Ex. DW- 7/X), her signature is absent, as the attestation process was interrupted.
97.Further, DW-7 referred to her register where she had noted, "This page was forcibly torn by the second party on 13.10.2016, for which a call was made to the PCR." DW-7 added that the original Rent Agreement remained with the first party, and the noting in her register regarding this is exhibited as Ex. DW-7/X1 (OSR).
Cross Examination of DW-7
98.DW-7 explained that she has been notarizing documents and maintaining records since 2015, operating from Tyagi Documentation Office at Dwarka Mor near pillar no. 758. She confirmed that she does not maintain any register other than the one in continuation and that she used a white-colored computerized typed printed paper to paste on the entry page of this Rent Agreement after the page was torn.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 50 of 70
99.DW-7 further stated that this paper was pasted due to the argument between both parties, resulting in the tearing of the register page. She clarified that although the size of the pasted paper appeared slightly different, it was affixed on the same register page where Entry No. 538 was made. DW-7 insisted that both parties were arguing in her presence, and because of the dispute, the document could not be finalized with her signature. She categorically denied the suggestion that the page was not torn by the parties and emphasized that the thumb impressions were made on a vertically opening register, but not the one in question. While she acknowledged the absence of an exact time during the entry process, she reiterated that the original copy of the Rent Agreement remained with the first party. Finally, DW-7 denied the suggestion that she was making a false statement or that the pasted page was improperly affixed from another section of the register.
DW-8/Sh. Naresh Kumar Kalia, Record Incharge, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
100. DW-8, the summoned witness in this matter, appeared with instructions to produce documents relating to CA No. 151271282, installed at R-66, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, for the years 2016 and 2017. However, DW-8 apprised the court that the records for the specified period, 2016 and 2017, were not traceable in CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 51 of 70 their office. The complaint dated 21.04.2017, marked as Mark X, was confirmed by DW-8 as having the receiving stamp of the BSES Department, District Centre, Janakpuri. Although the stamp is admitted, DW-8 stated that the document marked as Mark D could not be located in the office records. DW-8 further stated that he informed his senior, Ms. Gurjit Kaur, APO, regarding the unavailability of Mark D in the office. He also noted that there is no established procedure for lodging complaints about non- traceable documents, and he was unaware if any specific rules exist to handle such issues. The BSES office retains records for a period of two years, while diary dispatch records are retained for four years, after which the records are discarded.
Cross Examination of DW-8
101. During cross-examination, DW-8 admitted that he did not verify whether CA No. 151271282 was installed at the property, R-66, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He explained that the CA number changes when an electricity connection is transferred from one person to another.
DW-9/ Sh. Pramod Tyagi, Proprietor of Tyagi Documentation Centre.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 52 of 70
102. DW-9 states that he holds a valid license under IMPACC(IV)/dl727013/DELHI/DL-DLH. DW-9 confirms that he issued the stamp paper bearing no. IN- DL67314346273113N to the first party, Sh. Krishan Kumar, and the second party, Sh. Harish Lochave, for the purpose of Article 40 Mortgage, which has already been marked as Mark B. DW-9 further mentions that he does not recall who made the payment for this particular stamp paper.
Cross Examination of DW-9
103. During Cross Examination, DW-9 asserts that, according to the stamp paper, the stamp duty was paid by Sh. Krishan Kumar, although he does not remember who purchased the stamp paper specifically. He clarifies that any person can purchase a stamp paper in the name of another individual. Moreover, DW-9 categorically states that the mortgage deed attached to the stamp paper was neither prepared nor signed in his office. He had no involvement in the preparation of the mortgage deed. (At this point, the Ld. counsel for the defendant objects, asserting that the witness has been called solely to address issues regarding the stamp paper, not the mortgage deed.) Final Arguments Submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for Plaintiff CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 53 of 70
104. The plaintiff is seeking possession of the suit property, recovery of unpaid rent, electricity charges, and mesne profits for the defendant's unauthorized occupation. The plaintiff, who lawfully owns the property located at the 3rd floor of Plot No. R-66, Khasra No. 60/7, Village Hastal, entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for 11 months, beginning on 13.10.2016 and expiring on 12.09.2017. The defendant defaulted on rent payments from April 2017 onwards and failed to vacate the property after the lease expired, continuing to occupy it without legal authorization.
105. The plaintiff has provided documentary evidence, including the Lease Deed, and has examined six witnesses, whose testimonies remain unshaken. The plaintiff seeks recovery of ₹40,000 towards unpaid rent, ₹14,530 for electricity charges, and damages of ₹500 per day from 13.09.2017 until the defendant vacates the property, as well as pendente lite and future mesne profits, with interest. The defendant has produced no credible evidence to challenge the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff requests the court to decree possession of the suit property, recovery of dues, and payment of damages for the defendant's illegal occupation.
Submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for Defendant CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 54 of 70
106. The defendant argues that the suit filed by the plaintiff is based on fraudulent claims and fabricated documents. The defendant is the rightful owner of the property in question, having purchased it in 2015 from Seema Sharma, with ownership supported by legally binding documents. The plaintiff's claims of a landlord- tenant relationship are false, as no such agreement ever existed, and the alleged rent agreement is forged. The plaintiff has no right to demand possession, rent, or utility payments, as the defendant has been paying her bills directly as the owner.
107. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has acted with malicious intent, using false documents and threats to seize the property illegally. The plaintiff has also undervalued the property to bring the suit within this Court's jurisdiction, further demonstrating the misuse of the legal process. In conclusion, the defendant requests the dismissal of the suit with costs, as the plaintiff has no legal basis or cause of action.
108. Analysis and Findings Issue No. (1):-
Whether the signatures of defendant on the agreements dated 20.10.2015 and 13.10.2016 were obtained by plaintiff at the time of taking of loan of Rs 4,00,000/- by CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 55 of 70 Sh Krishan Kumar from the plaintiff and by the defendant from Sh Krishan Kumar? OPD.
109. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
110. The plaintiff argues that the defendant voluntarily executed the agreements dated 20.10.2015 and 13.10.2016, which established a landlord-tenant relationship. These agreements were duly signed by the defendant, as evidenced by the documents and supported by witnesses (PW-1, PW-2). The plaintiff maintains that there was no connection between these rental agreements and any loan transaction involving Sh. Krishan Kumar, and the defendant's allegations are baseless.
111. The defendant contends that her signatures were obtained fraudulently when she was involved in a loan transaction with Sh. Krishan Kumar. She argues that the plaintiff misused her signatures from the loan documents to create fake rental agreements, with the intention of fabricating a landlord-tenant relationship and depriving her of ownership rights.
112. The crux of this issue revolves around the doctrine of fraud under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which defines fraud as an act that involves deception with the intent to gain an undue advantage. The burden of CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 56 of 70 proving fraud is on the party alleging it. In this case, the defendant has not presented any expert forensic evidence, such as a handwriting analysis, to demonstrate that her signatures were forged or obtained under duress.
113. Fraudulent procurement of signatures must be proven through conclusive evidence, especially in light of the fact that the agreements appear to be regular on their face. The plaintiff has consistently maintained that the agreements were entered into voluntarily, and witnesses (PW-1, PW-2) have corroborated this claim. An unsubstantiated allegation of fraud can undermine the credibility of the party raising it. Given the lack of compelling evidence from the defendant, this Court rejects the fraud allegations.
114. On the basis of above, this Court holds that the defendant's signatures were obtained voluntarily, and the agreements were not fraudulently executed. Thus this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. (2):-
Whether the defendant is residing in the suit property in her own independent right and not as a tenant of plaintiff? OPD.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 57 of 70
115. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
116. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant entered into a tenancy agreement on 13.10.2016, agreeing to pay ₹10,000 per month in rent. The tenancy commenced on 13.10.2016 and expired on 12.09.2017. Despite the lease's expiration, the defendant continues to reside in the property without paying rent or vacating the premises, making her possession unauthorized. The plaintiff argues that the defendant's continued possession after 12.09.2017 is unlawful.
117. The defendant claims that she is the rightful owner of the suit property, having purchased it from Seema Sharma in 2015. She asserts that there was never any landlord-tenant relationship between her and the plaintiff. The defendant argues that the plaintiff fabricated the tenancy agreements to create a false narrative of tenancy and to illegally claim possession of the property.
118. The resolution of this issue hinges on the interpretation of the tenancy agreements and the supporting evidence regarding possession. Under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a tenancy is defined as the transfer of the right to enjoy immovable property for a specified period in exchange for consideration (rent). The plaintiff has produced valid lease CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 58 of 70 agreements, duly executed and signed by the parties. These documents are prima facie evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship.
119. Additionally, the principle of estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies here. The defendant's failure to contest the tenancy or assert her ownership rights during the term of the lease raises an inference of acquiescence. If the defendant truly believed she was the owner, she would have acted to assert her rights much earlier. Moreover, the defendant's ownership claim rests on documents from Seema Sharma, which do not appear to be registered or formally executed in a manner that would override the plaintiff's documented lease. Courts have consistently held that an unregistered agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights.
120. Thus this Court concludes that the defendant is occupying the suit property as a tenant, and not in her independent right as an owner. This issue is resolved in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. (3):-
Whether the suit property has been let out by the plaintiff to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs 10,000/-? OPP.
121. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 59 of 70
122. The plaintiff claims that the defendant agreed to lease the property for ₹10,000 per month under a lease agreement dated 13.10.2016. The plaintiff has produced the lease agreement (Ex. PW1/3) and relied on corroborating witness testimonies (PW-1 and PW-2), all of which point to a valid tenancy arrangement. The plaintiff further contends that the defendant paid rent for a period of time but subsequently defaulted.
123. The defendant denies entering into any rental agreement and argues that the lease agreements are forged and fabricated. She asserts that she never agreed to any rental terms with the plaintiff, and that the property belongs to her.
124. In civil suits regarding tenancy, courts give considerable weight to written agreements. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Section 91, provides that when a contract has been reduced to writing, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of the contract except the document itself. The lease agreement (Ex. PW1/3) submitted by the plaintiff is a binding legal document, and the defendant has not provided any concrete evidence of forgery or coercion, this Court thus relies on the written contract.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 60 of 70
125. Additionally, witness testimony corroborates the existence of the tenancy arrangement. PW-1 and PW-2 have affirmed that the defendant entered into the lease agreement with the plaintiff, and no credible evidence has been presented by the defendant to refute these claims.
126. The defendant's mere denial of the lease agreement's validity does not suffice, as per the maxim onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat (the burden of proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies). Since the defendant has not discharged this burden by producing evidence of forgery or fraud, this Court upholds the plaintiff's claim that the property was let out for ₹10,000 per month.
127. Thus this Court finds that the suit property was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant at a monthly rent of ₹10,000. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. (4):-
Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs 40,000/- and electricity charges to the extent of Rs. 14,530/ towards the plaintiff OPP.
128. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 61 of 70
129. The plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to pay rent for five months from 13.04.2017 to 12.09.2017. After adjusting the security, the net rental dues remains for four months amounting to ₹40,000 in arrears. The plaintiff also claims that the defendant owes ₹14,530 in unpaid electricity charges, which were the defendant's responsibility under the terms of the lease. The defendant denies any liability for rent arrears or electricity charges, asserting that she is not a tenant and therefore owes nothing to the plaintiff.
130. Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a tenant is obligated to pay rent during the tenancy period and until the termination of the lease. The plaintiff has provided documentary evidence (Ex. PW5/A) to support his claim of unpaid electricity charges, and the plaintiff's case for rent arrears is further substantiated by the lease agreement and the fact that the defendant did not contest the payment of rent until after the dispute arose.
131. The defendant has failed to provide evidence that would discharge her obligation to pay rent during the relevant period. Courts have consistently held that a tenant's liability for rent and utility charges continues even after the lease's expiration if the tenant remains in possession of the property. Since the defendant remained in possession after the lease expired, the plaintiff's claim for arrears is valid.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 62 of 70
132. On the basis of above, this Court grants the plaintiff a decree for the recovery of ₹40,000 in rent arrears and ₹14,530 in unpaid electricity charges. Thus this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. (5):-
Whether the present suit has not been properly valued by the plaintiff for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees? OPD.
133. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant.
134. The plaintiff has valued the suit at ₹1,89,530, which includes ₹1,20,000 (annual rent), ₹54,530 (arrears of rent and electricity charges), and ₹15,000 (mesne profits for one month). The plaintiff contends that the suit has been properly valued in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the applicable law for determining jurisdiction.
135. The defendant contends that the suit has been undervalued and that the property's true market value exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. She argues that the plaintiff deliberately undervalued the suit to bring CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 63 of 70 it within the jurisdiction of the court and that the real value of the property should be considered for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees.
136. The valuation of a suit for possession, recovery of arrears, and mesne profits is based on the Court Fees Act, 1870, as well as the relevant provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The plaintiff's valuation of ₹1,89,530 has been based on the annual rent (₹1,20,000), unpaid arrears of rent (₹40,000), electricity dues (₹14,530), and mesne profits (₹15,000 for one month). According to the legal framework, the valuation of a suit for possession of leased property is determined by the amount of rent payable, not the market value of the property itself.
137. The defendant's contention that the market value of the property should be taken into account is irrelevant in the context of this case, as it is not a suit for declaration of ownership or sale of immovable property. Instead, it is a suit for possession based on a tenancy dispute. Courts have repeatedly held that for suits involving rent and possession, the valuation is to be determined based on the contractual rental value and related claims, not the actual market value of the property. In addition, the plaintiff has paid the requisite court fees based on the valuation provided, which appears to be in accordance with the law.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 64 of 70
138. Thus this Court holds that the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees. The defendant's argument regarding undervaluation lacks merit, and this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. (6):-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit property against the defendant? OPP.
139. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff.
140. The plaintiff seeks possession of the suit property, arguing that the tenancy expired on 12.09.2017, and the defendant has unlawfully remained in possession of the property without paying rent. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's continued occupation is unauthorized and illegal.
141. The defendant claims that she is the rightful owner of the property and denies any tenancy relationship with the plaintiff. She contends that the plaintiff has no legal right to seek possession, as she is the legitimate owner of the suit property.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 65 of 70
142. The entitlement to possession is determined by the terms of the tenancy and the applicable provisions under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Once a lease has expired and the tenant fails to vacate the premises, the landlord is entitled to recover possession through a suit for eviction. The lease agreement in this case, which expired on 12.09.2017, clearly establishes the termination of the defendant's right to occupy the property.
143. Under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, upon the determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to hand over possession of the property to the lessor. Failure to do so renders the possession unlawful and subjects the tenant to eviction.
144. The defendant's claim of ownership has not been substantiated by registered title documents or any strong legal evidence that would override the plaintiff's claim. Additionally, the defendant's continued possession after the lease's expiration, without rent payment, further undermines her defence.
145. On the basis of above, this Court grants a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff, as the defendant's occupation has become unauthorized after the expiration of the lease. The plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property. Thus this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 66 of 70 Issue No. (7):-
Whether plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits/damages if so at what rate and for what period? OPP.
146. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff.
147. The plaintiff seeks mesne profits/damages at the rate of ₹500 per day from 13.09.2017 (the day after the lease expired) until the defendant vacates the property. The plaintiff argues that the claimed rate is reasonable considering the location of the property and the prevailing market conditions.
148. The defendant denies any liability for mesne profits, asserting that she is not a tenant and that the plaintiff has no right to claim such damages. She contends that she is the owner of the property and is in rightful possession.
149. Mesne profits are defined under Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as profits that the person in wrongful possession of property has earned during the period of unlawful occupation. Once the tenancy expired on 12.09.2017, the defendant's continued occupation became unauthorized, making her liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff for the period of illegal occupation.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 67 of 70
150. The plaintiff has claimed ₹500 per day, which appears reasonable in light of the market value of similar properties in the area. Courts have discretion to award mesne profits based on the rental value of the property and any evidence of the property's use during the period of unlawful possession. The purpose of mesne profits is to compensate the rightful owner for the loss of income resulting from the unlawful occupation.
151. In determining the rate of mesne profits, this Court relies on the principle that the compensation should reflect the fair market rental value of the property during the period of unauthorized occupation. The plaintiff's claim of ₹500 per day is proportionate and reasonable given the facts of the case.
152. Thus this Court awards mesne profits to the plaintiff at the rate of ₹500 per day from 13.09.2017 until the defendant vacates the property. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No. (8):-
Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs 40,000/- and electricity charges to the extent of Rs. 14,530/- against the defendant? OPP.
153. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff.
CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 68 of 70
154. The plaintiff seeks recovery of ₹40,000 in rent arrears for the period from 13.04.2017 to 12.09.2017, and ₹14,530 in unpaid electricity charges. The plaintiff asserts that despite repeated requests, the defendant has failed to make these payments, which were due under the lease agreement.
155. The defendant denies any liability for rent arrears or electricity charges, asserting that she was not a tenant and that the plaintiff's claims are false.
156. Given that the tenancy has been established and the lease agreement explicitly outlines the defendant's obligation to pay rent and utility charges, the plaintiff's claim for arrears is valid. Under the lease, the defendant was required to pay ₹10,000 per month in rent, and the failure to do so over a period of five months amounts to ₹40,000 in arrears (after adjusting the security amount). Additionally, the unpaid electricity charges amounting to ₹14,530 also remains due. The defendant's denial of liability lacks substantive proof, and in the absence of any evidence to refute the plaintiff's claims, the court accepts the plaintiff's assertion regarding unpaid rent and utility bills.
157. This court thus grants a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the recovery of ₹40,000 in rent arrears and CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 69 of 70 ₹14,530 in electricity charges. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief.
158. Based on the detailed analysis of the facts, evidence, and applicable law, the following reliefs are hereby granted in favour of the plaintiff:
o The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit property, as the tenancy has expired and the defendant's continued possession is unauthorized. o The plaintiff is held entitled to recover ₹40,000/- in rent arrears and ₹14,530/- in unpaid electricity charges. o This court awards mesne profits at the rate of ₹500/- per day from 13.09.2017 until the defendant vacates the property.
o The Plaintiff is also awarded costs of the suit.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by Pronounced in the (Anuradha Jindal) ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
open Court on 30.09.2024 ACJ-CCJ-ARC, 2024.10.01 17:06:55 +0530 South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi CS SCJ 1044/2017 Harsih Lochave v. Babita Devi Page No. 70 of 70