Delhi District Court
Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi vs Late Prem Chand Jain on 9 May, 2013
Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL : ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 08, TIS HAZARI, DELHI
RCA no. 16/12
ID No. 02401C0305762012
Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi
Sole proprietor of
M/s Surana Plastic Emporium,
2771, First Floor,
Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi- 110006
And resident of
5801, Basti Harphool Singh,
Sadaar Bazar, Delhi-10006 ... Revisionist
Versus
Late Prem Chand Jain
S/o Late Jugminder Das Jain
Through his legal heirs
1. Smt. Kamlesh Jain.
2. Sh. Subhash Chand Jain
3. Smt. Rekha Jain
4. Smt. Reena Jain
All are residents
H.No. 19, Veer Nagar,
Jain Colony, Delhi-110007 ...Respondents.
ORDER
1. Present revision has been preferred against the judgment decree 4.4.2012 whereby the suit for recovery filed by Sh. Prem Chand Jain, now deceased through his LRs (herein after referred as plaintiff/respondent) was decreed against Smt. Amrao Devi (herein after referred as defendant/appellant).
RCA No. 16/12 1 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain
2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that plaintiff/respondent asked for recovery of Rs. 3127/- alleging that he is the owner/landlord of the property bearing no. 2271, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The defendant is the tenant in respect of one shop bearing pvt. no. 3 at first floor forming part of property bearing no. 2271, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, presently at a monthly rent of Rs. 161/- excluding electricity charges for commercial purpose. The tenancy of the defendant starts from first day of each English Calender Month and ends on the last day of same month. The defendant/ revisionist was demanding the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1992. Notice dated 14.3.94 was served thereafter rent was regularly paid upto 31.3.2002. No rent is paid w.e.f. 1.4.2002 instead of repeated demands. Demand notice dated 24.5.2003 was also sent to the defendant asking for rent w.e.f. 1.4.2002 with 15% interest, despite that it was not paid, hence the suit.
3. Summons sent to the defendant who filed the written statement taking the objection that suit is barred u/S 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957. There is no relationship in between the plaintiff and defendant as landlord and tenant. Plaintiff cheated defendant by suppressing the material facts and concealing the fact of execution of family settlement dated 26.3.1991 in between late Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain, plaintiff, Shri Sukhbir Singh Jain, Sh. Subhodh Kumar Jain and Subhash Chand Jain and later on the same ratified by the plaintiff himself on 5.1.1993 after the demises of Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain who died on 28.10.1992. The defendant reserves his right to recover the rent from the RCA No. 16/12 2 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain plaintiff paid in the garb of showing himself as a sole owner/landlord of the property. The total rent paid by defendant is Rs. 13489/-. It is alleged that there is no such person namely Amrao Devi. The actual name is Umrao Devi who is sole proprietor of M/s Surana Plastic Emporium i.e. tenant under tenancy of late Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain. It is alleged that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and he is not the owner. The defendant never refused to pay the rent but as the title was not clear, therefore, the defendant deposited the entire arrear of rent till 30.09.2003 in the court of Senior Civil Judge in compliance of order of the court concerned.
4. In reply on merits it is admitted that the defendant is the tenant but it is denied that plaintiff is landlord/owner. It is denied that there are any arrears.
5. Replication was filed wherein plaintiff denied the averment made in the written statement and reasserted the facts mentioned in the plaint.
6. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and thereafter closed the evidence. Defendant examined Sh. Shanti Lal Surana as DW1 and also examined Sh. Naraesh Chand Jian as DW2, thereafter closed the evidence.
7. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the arguments passed the judgment decreeing the suit of plaintiff for Rs. 3,127/- with 15% interest per annum from the date of institution till its realization RCA No. 16/12 3 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain with cost.
8. Present revision has been preferred challenging the order.
Notice of the revision was sent tot he respondent. Trial Court record was requisitioned.
9. As the revision was filed beyond the period of limitation, hence, the application for condonation of delay was also moved. Notice of that application was also given.
10. I have heard ld. counsel for the revisionist, ld. counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
11. Ld. counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a tenant of one room at the first floor of 2771, Qutab Road, Delhi inducted by late Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain, the actual owner and landlord. During the life time of Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain a family settlement was reached on 26.3.1991 mentioning that the landlordship of the tenanted portion of the revisionist is transferred to Sh. Sukhbir Singh Jain which was again ratified by Sh. Sukhbir Singh Jain and late Prem Chand Jain vide separate agreement on 5.1.1993 but the plaintiff/respondent has taken undue advantage of the ill health of the revisionist and as she was not having any knowledge started taking rent from her by mis-representing and playing fraud. When the revisionist came to know about the foul play played by plaintiff/respondent she has no other alternative but to stop making payment to the plaintiff/respondent and deposited the same in the court as she was not certain about the RCA No. 16/12 4 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain lawful landlord of the tenanted premises . The plaintiff/respondent filed false case against the revisionist he is neither owner nor landlord. The plaintiff/respondent himself admitted the factum of the family settlement, even the case seeking probate was pending disposal which fact was also concealed but the Trial Court has not considered all these facts. Plaintiff/respondent filed one Will dated 3.6.1991 allegedly executed by late Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain in his favour. On the basis of certified copy of the judgment dt. 12.5.2008, though no application to amend the claim on the strength of the same was moved, the trial court passed the decree. The plaintiff/respondent has also not disclosed the pendency of various litigations between the LRs, infact he was not having any locus standi to file the suit. Even otherwise as the revisionist has already deposited the rent, therefore there was no question of passing the decree of the plaintiff was entitled , could have very well withdrawn that amount which already stands deposited. On the ground of limitation, it is submitted that the revisionist is old aged and was suffering from various diseases due to which he was constrained to live in Madhurai, Tamilnadu for her treatment when the revisionist received notice through her counsel about the decree then she after managing somehow contacted the counsel and prepared the revision. It is prayed that keeping in view the old age and the fact that she is suffering from various disease and is residing at a distant place in Tamilnadu it is requested that the delay be condoned.
12. Ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no reasonable ground given by the counsel for condoning the delay.
RCA No. 16/12 5 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain On this ground itself, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Ld. counsel submitted that in the present case there is a defence set up by her that there is no relationship between the revisionist and the respondent as land lord and tenant, however, it is admitted that the tenancy was created by Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain, father of the respondent but admittedly the rent was being paid to the respondent upto March, 2002 and thereafter did not pay the rent despite demand, therefore, cause of action has arisen. Ld. counselsubmitted that Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain executed the Will and probate case no. 2322006 and 234/06 were filed which were disposed of by Ms. Bimla Makin, Ld. ADJ on the basis of compromise between plaintiff/respondent and Sh. Sukhbir Singh Jain According to the compromise the property fell in the share of the plaintiff and therefore revisionist is liable to pay rent to the respondent.
13. So far as the deposit of rent in the Civil Court is concerned that is not valid deposit and therefore that cannot be considered. Ld. counsel submitted that there is no merit in the revision, the same be dismissed.
14. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, so far as the delay is concerned, in view of the facts and circumstances explained, the delay is condoned.
15. In this case, it is admitted fact that the revisionist/defendant was inducted as tenant admittedly by Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain, father of the present plaintiff/respondent. Sh. Jugminder Dass RCA No. 16/12 6 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain Jain executed two Wills dated 3.6.1991 and 29.7.1992 and two separate probate petitions were filed bearing no. 232/06 titled Prem Chand Jain Vs State and the other bearing no. 234/06 titled as Sukhbir Singh Jain vs State. Both these petitions were disposed of vide order dt. 12.5.2008 in view of the settlement reached between Sukhbir Singh Jain and Sh. Prem Chand Jain. In view of the settlement, the cases filed by them against each other were also withdrawn and according to that settlement the suit property in part of which revisionist is tenant fell to the share of plaintiff/respondent. The revisionist/defendant being tenant cannot object to the compromise reached between the owners of the property or the Will executed by the owner/landlord of the property as held in judgment cited as: A.K. Nayar Vs Mahesh Prasad, 153 (2008) DLT423 and Syed Mohammed Mian Nizami Vs Qasima Khatoori 2012 (1) Rent L. R 63.
16. Even otherwise the revisionist/defendant was paying rent to the respondent/defendant upto March, 2002 which fact is admitted where as Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain died on 28.10.1992. Even after death of Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain whereas the revisionist/defendant continued to pay the rent to Sh.Prem Chand Jain. The plaintiff/respondent upto March 2002 and then all of a sudden stopped making payment. There is no explanation as to why she stopped making payment of rent except bald averment that there was dispute between the owners but no such document has been placed on record that all the owners or any other owner also claimed rent from her and if there was any dispute then the same arose in 1992 when Sh.Juginder Dass died but despite that RCA No. 16/12 7 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain for 10 years she continued to pay rent. Therefore, so far as revisionist/defendant is concerned for her the landlord was Sh. Prem Chand Jain, the plaintiff/respondent, even otherwise in view of the judgment passed by ld. ADJ, Ms. Bimla Makin he is owner of the suit property part of which is under the tenancy of the revisionist and therefore he is entitled to receive the rent.
17. So far as deposit of rent under Punjab Inductiveness Act is concerned that is not the valid tender as held in the judgment cited as Atmaram Vs Shakuntala Rani, AIR 2005, SC 3753, therefore, the contention that as the rent has already been deposited, the respondent can recover the same from there is not tenable.
18. In view of the above discussion and the fact that admittedly there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, respondent was regularly making the payment of the rent but all of a sudden without any reason stopped payment, in my opinion, ld. Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. There is no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed.
Copy of order along with Trial Court record be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on 09.05.2013.
VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE-08
CENTRAL, DELHI
RCA No. 16/12 8 of 8
Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain 09.05.2013.
Present: Parties in person.
Vide separate order, revision petition is dismissed. Copy of order along with Trial Court record be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE-08
CENTRAL, DELHI
RCA No. 16/12 9 of 8