Delhi District Court
Ravinder Kumar Ahuja vs Mst. Sahida Anr on 21 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
DISTRICT JUDGE-01, SOUTH, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.8445/16 (Old No.66/16)
DLST-01-002266-2016
Ravinder Kumar Ahuja
S/o Late Dr. T. C. Ahuja
R/o B-12, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi-110021
....Plaintiff
Vs
(1) Mst. Sahida
W/o Late Sh. Rafiq Ahmed
(2) Mst. Fatima
D/o Late Sh. Rafiq Ahmed
C/o Mst. Shahida
Both R/o Property No.4, Ahuja Farms,
Mulbery Avenue, CLF Chhattarpur Farms
New Delhi
(Earlier known as H. No.128, MA, DLF
Chhattarpur Farms, New Delhi-110074
(3) Raees Ahmed
S/o Sh. Rafiq Ahmed
R/o Jaitley Farms, 4, Maple Avenue,
DLF, Chhattarpur, New Delhi-110074
(4) Sh. Anees Ahmed
S/o Sh. Rafiq Ahmed
R/o Property No.4, Ahuja Farms,
Chhattarpur, New Delhi-110074
(5) Mst. Khatija
D/o Late Sh. Rafiq Ahmed
Both R/o Property No.4, Ahuja Farms,
Mulbery Avenue, CLF Chhattarpur Farms
New Delhi
(Earlier known as H. No.128, MA, DLF
Chhattarpur Farms, New Delhi-110074
CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 1 of 33
Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors
(6) Yasin Ahmed
S/o Late Sh. Ballu
R/o Property No.4, Ahuja Farms,
Malbery Avenue, DLF, Chhattarpur Farms
New Delhi-110074
(7) Layeek Ahmed
(8) Attek Ahmed
Both S/o Late Sh. Rafiq Ahmed
Both R/o H. No.60, 2nd Avenue,
Chandan Holla, Chhattarpur Village
New Delhi-110074
..... Defendants
Date of institution : 13.07.2016
Date for reserving orders : 07.09.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.10.2024
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR MANDATORY, PROHIBITORY INJUNCTIONS, RECOVERY OF RS.3,33,334/- AS DAMAGES, MESNE PROFITS AND COMPENSATION
1. The present suit has been filed by Ravinder Kumar Ahuja (hereinafter referred to and called as plaintiff) for mandatory, prohibitory injunctions, recovery of Rs.3,33,334/- as damages, mesne profits and compensation against Mst. Sahida (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.1), Mst. Fatima (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.2), Raees Ahmed (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.3), Anees Ahmed (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.4), Mst. Khatija (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.5), Yasin Ahmad (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.6), Layeek Ahmad (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.7) and Ateek Ahmad (hereinafter referred to and called as defendant no.8).
CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 2 of 33Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and was in possession of property no.4, Mulbery Avenue, DLF Chhatarpur Farms also known by the name of Ahuja Farms. The property has four rooms, one courtyard, one kitchen, one toilet and bathroom alongwith open land consisting of 18 bighas, 16 biswas of Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi-
74.
3. The plaintiff had purchased 16 bighas and 8 biswas vide two registered sale deeds in 1978 from previous owner and the remaining land had been under cultivatory rights of plaintiff since 1978. The entire farm house has been mutated in the name of plaintiff in the revenue records and he has been shown as owner in possession as well as cultivator in the jamabandi as well as khasra girdawari.
4. The plaintiff had also got installed electricity meter and agriculture power connection in his own name. He has also got a tubewell and landline phone on the suit property. He is also a member of DLF Chhatarpur Farm House Association and has been making regular payment for utility facilities and services.
5. The farm house of the plaintiff was notified for acquisition under section 4, 6 and 9 of Land Acquisition Act and an award was passed against the plaintiff. Neither compensation was paid nor physical possession was taken from the plaintiff within the prescribed time and the acquisition and the award lapsed. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration before Delhi High Court and the acquisition proceedings were declared to have been lapsed. DDA moved into appeal against the CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 3 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to dismiss the appeal of the DDA.
6. Plaintiff thereafter constructed a boundary wall around the suit property and made a temporary structure of grass and bamboos for storing instruments and agriculture items. The plaintiff then replaced the temporary structure by a structure of bricks, sheets and red stones and kept on adding rooms and storage place to the said structure. Although, no permission was required for doing such constructure, MCD issued notices to the plaintiff.
7. In 1980 plaintiff engaged one Rafeeq Ahmad as chowkidar-cum- caretaker to look after and manage day to day affairs of plaintiff at the aforesaid farm. The plaintiff allowed him two room set with courtyard and improvised kitchen alongwith open toilet where Rafeeq Ahmad resided with his family till his death.
8. When children of Rafeeq Ahmad grew up and got married, they shifted to another place. Plaintiff even helped Rafeeq Ahmad in his illness and also helped him financially during the marriage of his daughter. Rafeeq Ahmad died on 28.02.2016 leaving behind his widow, defendant no.1, unmarried daughter Mst Khatiza, defendant no.5 Sh. Yaseen Ahmad (brother of the deceased) and defendant no.6. The permission that was granted to Rafeeq Ahmad during his lifetime to use and stay in the portion of the property automatically came to end with his death.
9. On 05.03.2016, the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the premises and make their own arrangement. Defendant no.1 requested CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 4 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors that she being a muslim lady was on Iddat and the plaintiff allowed her to spend the period of 40 days in the said house. On 10.04.2016, plaintiff again asked the defendant no.1 to vacate the premises and she sought another three days to complete the rituals and plaintiff agreed to the same. Plaintiff also noticed that the boundary wall had been broken at the few places and with the intention to get the same repaired, he brought labour on 14.04.2016 and started the repairs.
10.Meanwhile, the defendant no.4, 7 and 8 promised to vacate the premises after 13.04.2016. On 14.04.2016, the plaintiff and his daughter visited the farm house to check if the defendants had vacated their property. To their surprise, defendant no.4,7 and 8 blocked their way and did not allow them to enter into the property. They informed the plaintiff that they have changed their mind and they would not vacate the property and they even threatened the plaintiff and his family. Defendant no.8 even caused physical injury to the plaintiff. Police was called and defendants again promised to vacate the premises on 15.04.2016.
11.On 15.04.2016 again, defendants extended threats to the plaintiff and before the plaintiff could initiate any action against the defendants, defendant no.8 filed a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff relying on certain documents which are in fact the documents of the plaintiff. The defendants even committed theft by breaking open the locks of the almirah in the suit property. They removed the documents of the plaintiff lying there and misused them by filing in the court of learned SCJ, Saket Court. Plaintiff lodged a police complaint with respect to the theft and for illegal and CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 5 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors unauthorized removal of his documents.
12.On 03.05.2016, plaintiff again sent a legal notice to the defendants informing him regarding termination of his license subsequent to the death of Rafeeq Ahmad and called upon him to remove their belongings within 7 days of receipt of the notice. He further stated that non compliance of the terms of the notice and failing to vacate the premises would entitled the plaintiff to a claim of Rs.2 lakh per month towards damages, mesne profit and compensation etc. When neither the premises were vacated nor any reply was received towards the legal notice, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.
13.Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 wherein they submitted that suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands. It was further averred in the written statement filed by the defendant no.1,4,5,7 and 8 that late Rafeeq Ahmad was in cultivatory possession of the agricultural land bearing khasra no.1732/2 (1-12) and 1732/3 (0-16) measuring two bighas and 8 bishwas and as per the revenue record, the said land belonged to one Smt. Rajinder Kaur Kandari. In 1980, Rafeeq Ahmad took the land of the plaintiff on rent which was measuring 16 bighas and 8 bishwas and at the said time, the land was consisting of only one room. The plaintiff had let out the said land to Sh. Rafeeq Ahmad @ Rs.800/- per month and room @ Rs.100/- per month excluding electricity and telephone charges. Both the properties were distinct properties.
14.Defendants further stated in their written statement that late Sh. Rafeeq CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 6 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors Ahmad had from his own pocket constructed three rooms, kitchen, toilet and bathroom and also raised a boundary wall over the said property. While making the wall, Rafeeq Ahmad also covered the area of 2 bighas and 8 bishwas inside the boundary wall, even though the same land did not belong to the plaintiff and was not a subject matter of the tenancy agreement. He reiterated the fact that the land measuring 8 bighas 2 bishwas belonged to Smt. Rajinder Kaur Kandari and did not belong to the plaintiff.
15.It was further submitted that Rafeeq Ahmed expired on 28.02.2016 and till his death he was continuously paying Rs.800/- per month for agricultural land and Rs.100/- per month for the structure to the plaintiff. Rafeeq Ahmad used to pay the electricity bill and telephone bill in cash to the plaintiff who used to deposit the same in the concerned authorities. He stated that the property measuring two bighas 8 bishwas was already in cultivatory possession of Sh. Rafeeq Ahmad and the two properties i.e. tenanted property and the land measuring two bighas 8 bishwas were distinct and separate properties. Defendant further stated that Rafeeq Ahmad had constructed three rooms, kitchen, toilet and bathroom over the tenanted property from his own pocket and had also raised the boundary wall over the said property and also around the land measuring two bighas 8 bishwas. He has throughout submitted that land measuring 2 bighas 8 bishwas does not belong to the plaintiff and was never the subject matter of the tenancy between the plaintiff and late Rafeeq Ahmad. The said land belongs to Smt. Rajinder Kaur Kandari and was already in cultivatory possession of Rafeeq Ahmad for agricultural purpose and was governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act. Rafeeq Ahmad had his Ration CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 7 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors Card, Voter Card, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, passport, gas connection, bank account etc all with the address of the suit property. After the death of Rafeeq Ahmad, tenancy of 16 bigha 8 bishwas devolved upon his LRs and one son namely Anees Ahmad, defendant no.4 who used to cultivate the 2 bighas and 8 bishwas with the consent and permission of other legal heirs came in actual physical cultivatory possession of 2 bighas 8 bishwas. Defendants offered the rent of 16 bighas and 8 bishaws to the plaintiff after the death of Rafeeq Ahmad but they refused to accept the same. Hence, the defendants started depositing the same before the concerned revenue assistant as per the Punjab Tenancy Act.
16.It is further submitted that on 14.04.2016, two unknown person came and forcibly tried to enter into the property and when defendant no.8 tried to stop them, they ran away from the spot. On 15.04.2016, matter was reported to the police and on the same evening plaintiff alongwith his daughter forcibly entered into the tenanted premises with police persons and 8 musclemen. They pushed the defendant no.4 Anees Ahmad and gave him fist blows. They threatened the defendants and threw out the goods which were in the room. Defendants called the police and when police van came, plaintiff and other musclemen ran away. Police recorded the statements of the defendants. It is submitted that the suit is governed by Punjab Revenue Act and Delhi Reforms Act and hence is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
17.In parawise reply on merits, the defendants denied all the averments made by the plaintiff specifically stating that the defendants were in cultivatory possession of 2 bighas and 8 bishwas which was originally CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 8 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors in the name of Rajinder Kaur Kandari and plaintiff had nothing to do with the said land and qua the remaining land, the defendants were joints tenant of the same.
Defendants stated that plaintiff had no cause of action and the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
18.Written statement was also filed on behalf of defendant no.3 Raees Ahmad who denied all the averments made in the plaint.
19.Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendants controverting the stand taken by defendants in their respective written statements and reiterated the facts of his plaint.
20.After completion of proceedings, issues were framed vide order dated 06.09.2018 as under :-
1. Whether Sh. Rafiq Ahmad was a caretaker/licensee in the suit property? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed in clause (i) ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in clause (ii) ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.3,33,334/- as damages/mesne profits as prayed in clause (iii) ? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the amount as claimed in the issue no.4? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per month as mesne profits and usage charges and damages as prayed in CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 9 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors clause (iv) ? OPP
7. Whether the suit is hit by provisions of Section 84, 185 and 186 of Delhi Land Reforms Act ? OPD
8. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD
9. Relief.
21.Thereafter, matter was listed for plaintiff evidence. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents as under :-
1) Copy of sale deed dated 24.11.1978 and 08.12.1978, Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2.
2. Certified copy of Jama Bandi issued on 14.03.2007 is Ex.PW-1/3 and Jama Bandi issued on 31.03.2004 Mark A and Khasra Girdawri Ex.PW-1/3A, 3B, 3C and 3D respectively.
3. House Tax Property Tax receipts are Ex.PW-1/4-1 to Ex.PW1/4-12 (12 pages).
4. Telephone Bills are Ex.PW-1/5-1 to Ex.PW-1/5-11.
5. Electricity Bills are Ex.PW-1/6-1 to Ex.PW-1/6-47.
6. Certified copy of judgment dated 01.12.2014 is Ex.PW-1/7.
7. Certified copy of judgment dated 03.05.2016 is Ex.PW-1/8.
8. Show cause notice issued by MCD dated 20.12.2002 and 31.12.2002 are Ex.PW-1/9-1 and Ex.PW-1/9-2.
9. Site plan is Ex.PW-1/10.
10. Misc. Bills regarding Sale, Purchase and Maintenance are Ex.PW1/11-1 to Ex.PW-1/11-43.
11. Dharamkanta Receipts are Ex.PW-1/12-1 to Ex.PW-1/12-7.
12. Chhatarpur Farms Welfare Receipts are Ex.PW-1/15 and CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 10 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors Ex.PW1/16.
14. Details of Ration Card taken out from the internet which is Ex.PW- 1/17 and Ex.PW-1/18.
14. Certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act is Ex.PW-1/18-A.
15. Insurance Policies are marked as Mark PW-1/19-1 to Mark PW- 1/19-7.
16. Copy of the complaint to SHO dated 15.04.2016 is Ex.PW-1/20.
17. Copy of complaint dated 19.04.2016 is Ex.PW-1/21.
18. Copy of complaint dated 21.04.2016 is Ex.PW-1/22.
19. Copy of complaint dated 29.04.2016 is Ex.PW-1/23 (wrongly typed as 29.04.2017 in affidavit).
20. Notice dated 03.05.2016 of Sh.H. D. Aneja Advocate, Ex.PW1/24.
21. Postal receipts are Ex.PW-1/25 to Ex.PW-1/32.
22. Reply to the notice dated 13.05.2016 is Ex.PW-1/33.
23. Certified copies of pleadings/ proceedings and orders of injunction suit No.56/2016 is Ex.PW-1/34 (colly).
24. Certified copy judgment in suit no.SDM (Saket)2017/4483 dated 19.05.2017 is Ex.PW-1/35.
25. Copy of insurance policy/ cover note/ premium receipt of late Sh.Rafiq Ahmed, the same is Ex.PW-1/D-1 (colly).
26. Copy of Jama Bandi for the year 1991-92 is Ex.PW-1/D-2.
27. Copy of Jama Bandi dated 27.04.2016 is Ex.PW-1/D-3.
PW1 was duly cross-examined by defendant wherein witness stated that he had talked to a property dealer before purchasing the suit property. Rafeeq Ahmad came to him for a job in 1980 and he had given the job of caretaker to him. Witness did not know Rafeeq Ahmad prior to that. No written document was executed at the time of giving the job. Witness admitted that the case was for recovery of certain CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 11 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors rooms which were given to Rafeeq Ahmad and not for the total land measuring 18 bigha and 16 bishwas. He further stated that the fact of his cultivatory possession of 2 bighas and 8 bishwas is documented in khasra girdawari and khatauni. Witness had introduced Rafeeq Ahmad to different persons who could help him in carrying out the cultivation. Witness further stated that he used to cultivate gladiola flower and used to import the seeds from Holland. Witness used to avail the services of workers on daily wages and Rafeeq was given supervisory work. He further stated that Rafeeq was introduced to him by one of the temporary labour. After Rafeeq death, witness tried to cultivate the land but defendants used to create interference in this regard.
Witness was also confronted with certified copy of sale deed dated 12.01.1972 in favour of Suprabha Sahni in respect of Khasra no.1732/2, 1737, 1733/1/1 and 1733/1/2. he admitted that in the sale deed, there was no mention of khasra no.1732/1. He admitted that he had filed writ petition no.7102/14 alongwith CM No.16653/2014. He admitted that as per the Khasra girdawari filed by him in the writ petition, he was not the owner of khasra no.1732/2 and 1732/3. Witness admitted that as per sale deed Ex.PW1/D1 dated 28.05.1969, Smt. Suprabha Sahni was the owner of Khasra No.1732/2. He denied that the sale deed Ex.PW1/2 was forged as Smt. Suprabha Sahni was not the owner of 1732/1 but witness voluntarily clarified that he had purchased the 1732/1 after due verification of the revenue record and Suprabha Sahni had also provided him copy of Form 16. Witness further stated that Rajinder Kaur Kandari was the owner of 1732/2 and 1732/3 and he was in possession. He was cultivating the land and was using it for agricultural purposes. He had planted fruit, trees and other items and was also using the suit property for family functions and get CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 12 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors togethers. Witness further stated that he had employed Rafeeq Ahmad in 1980 and he was paying salary regularly in cash to him. He could not tell the name of the family members of Sh. Rafeeq who were residing in the suit property. He stated that there was no question of paying rent as Rafeeq Ahmad was his caretaker and for the said reason, he had been allowed to stay free of cost. Witness stated that he had not executed any document pertaining to his cultivatory possession in khasra no,1732/2 and 1732/3 with Rajinder Kaur Kandari. He had purchased the land from Smt. Suprabha Sahni and the land was encircled in the boundary. Nobody ever came to object for its cultivation from the beginning and revenue record also confirmed that he had been a cultivator.
Witness further stated that Ex.PW1/D3 which was the khasra girdawari was filed by him before Hon'ble High Court. He stated that he did not know Rajinder Kaur Kandari who was the registered owner of Khasra no.1732/2 and 1732/3. He denied that the document filed by him Ex.PW1/11 was forged.
22.Thereafter, plaintiff did not examine any other witness in support of his case and plaintiff evidence was closed and defendant's evidence was conducted.
23.Defendant Ateek Ahmad examined himself as DW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.DW1/A. He stated that he was the attorney of defendant no.1, 4 and 5. He stated that the suit property was an agricultural land and defendants were cultivators for more then 40 years. Plaintiff had never been the landlord nor was there any contract between the plaintiff and defendant. He stated that Rafeeq Ahmad was CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 13 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors in cultivatory possession of the suit properties since the last more than 40 years and he also was on rent since 1980 of the land measuring 16 bigha and 8 biswas. The plaintiff had let out the said properties to Rafeeq Ahmad at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- and one room at a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The area of 2 bigha and 8 biswas was already in cultivatory possession of Sh. Rafeeq Ahmad and the said area was adjacent to 16 bigha & 8 biswas allegedly belonging to the plaintiff.
24.He further stated that Rafeeq Ahmad had constructed three rooms, a kitchen and a toilet over the tenanted property and also raised a boundary wall from his own pocket. He reiterated that 2 bigha and 8 biswas did not belong to the plaintiff and Rafeeq Ahmad had also constructed a well and was maintaining the same from time to time till he expired. He was also paying rent for the land belonging to the plaintiff and also electricity and telephone charges of the tenanted property. After the death of Rafeeq Ahmad, tenancy of 16 bigha and 8 biswas had devolved upon the legal heirs, who became the joint tenants and till date they are cultivating the land. The plaintiff with malafide intention had tried to forcibly dispossess the defendants from the suit property by using Police and muscle powers.
Witness relied upon the documents as under :-
1) Aks Sizra of suit property, Mark DW1/A1.
2) Site plan of suit property, Mark DW1/A2.
3) Ration Card of Rafiq Ahmad, Mark DW1/H1.
4) LIC, Mark DW1/H2 (colly, 3 pages).
5) Aadhar Card of Rafiq Ahmad, Mark DW1/H3.
6) Voter ID of Rafiq Ahmad, Mark DW1/H4.CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 14 of 33
Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors
7) Aadhar Card of Shahida Khatoon, Mark DW1/I-1.
8) Voter ID of Shahida Khatoon, Mark DW1/I-2.
9) Receipt of Gas connection in the name of Anees Ahmad, Mark DW1/I-3.
10) Passport of Anees Ahmad, Mark DW1/I-4.
11) Aadhar Card of Khatiza Khatoon, Mark DW1/I-5.
12) Copy of photographs and newspaper, Mark DW1/J (colly, page no.80-95 of list of documents).
13) Police compliant dated 15.04.2016, Mark DW1/R1.
14) Police compliant dated 17.04.2016, Mark DW1/R2.
15) Death certificate of Rafiq Ahmad, Mark DW1/H5.
16) Copy of money order receipts, Mark DW1/W.
17) Bainama, Mark DW1/Y (two pages).
18) Copy of order of SDM dated 04.08.2016, Mark DW1/U.
19) Copy of application for depositing rent, Mark DW1/Q.
20) Copy of suit for declaration of Bhumidari rights, Mark DW1/T1.
21) Copy of bills of purchase of fertilizers, seeds, soil plantation, organic manure etc, Mark DW1/B1 (colly, page 9 to 40 of list of documents).
22) Certificate issued of Flower Market Committee, Mark DW1/K1.
23) Receipts of Delhi Flower Cutters, Growers and Suppliers Welfare Society, Mark DW1/K2 (colly, page no.44 to 47 of list of documents).
24) Copy of receipt of plantation tools and repairing Mark DW1/D1 (colly, page no.48 to 62 of list of documents).
25) Cold storage receipts, Mark DW1/C1 (colly, two pages).
26) Copy of gate passes issued by Chhatarpur Welfare Society for the year 2001-2003, Mark DW1/M (colly, two pages).
27) Copy of receipt for payment of Sapling, Mark DW1/G. CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 15 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors
28) Challan of MCD, Mark DW1/E.
29) Copy of cash memo dated 28.01.1992, Mark DW1/C2.
In his cross-examination, the witness stated that his father was educated upto 6th and 7th class and came to Delhi perhaps in the year 1976. He was residing at Bijnor, Utter Pradesh prior to that. Witness/defendant No.8 stated that he had met the plaintiff for the first time in the year 1999 when he had come to attend the marriage. He stated that his father was introduced by the plaintiff to one Sh. Surender Singh Ahuja and the plaintiff used to collect rent from his father on behalf of Sh. Surender Singh Ahuja and later on started collecting the rent for himself. Witness further stated that this fact was not stated in the written statement and there was no agreement of tenancy between his father and the plaintiff qua 16 bigha and 8 biswa of land.
25.On being asked from the witness, if he could show any document showing the tenancy between his father and the plaintiff, the witness answered that his father was the tenant of Sh. Surender Singh Ahuja vide a registered Rent Deed and he could produce the certified copy of the Rent Deed before the court. He also stated that his father was never a tenant of the plaintiff. He further deposed that his father had told him that the owner of the property was Sh. Surender Singh Ahuja in the year 1999. Witness further admitted that his father's name was never recorded as a cultivator or lessee in the Revenue Record. Throughout the cross-examination, the witness maintained the stand that Sh.Surender Singh Ahuja and not the plaintiff was the owner of the property. On being asked, the witness could not show the receipt with respect to his father's tenancy. He stated that he could not do so. He CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 16 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors further stated that the electricity connection for the entire property was in the name of Sh.Ravinder Kumar Ahuja but the Khasra number so stated was wrong. He further stated that there was no tax applicable on the said property as the same was in the agricultural land. Witness could not tell who was the owner and cultivator as per the Revenue Record of the Khasra No. 1570/1 (3-18), 1571/1 (3-18), 1532/1 (2-08), 1733/1 (1-08), 1737/1 (3-12) & 1737/2 (1-04). Witness stated that he had filed a petition seeking deposit of rent under the Punjab Tenancy Act before the SDM Court. Witness stated that he had a residential plot in his name at Village Chandanhola and he was a property dealer by profession since the year 2010. He denied that he had filed false documents with respect to the deposit of rent before the court as he did not know any filing number nor did he have the case number or order passed in the purported petition. He denied that his father was a Caretaker or under the employment of the plaintiff.
26.No other witness was examined by defendant in support of his case and defendant's evidence was closed. Thereafter, evidence was closed.
27.Final arguments were addressed by the counsel for plaintiffs and defendant. Written arguments were also filed by the plaintiff to substantiate his submissions.
28.I have gone through the documents placed on record and perused the evidence of the parties and file carefully.
29.My Issue wise findings are as follows:
Issue No.1 shall be decided first and issues no.2 & 3 are CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 17 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors dependent on the decision of the first issue.
1. Whether Sh. Rafiq Ahmad was a caretaker/licensee in the suit property? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed in clause (i) ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in clause (ii) ? OPP The onus to prove the first issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing No.4 Ahuja Farms, Mulbery Avenue, CLF Chhattarpur Farms New Delhi and has sought prohibitory injunction alongwith mandatory injunction and damages coupled with mesne profits and compensation for unauthorized and illegal occupation of the part of the property. As per the plaint, plaintiff was the owner and was in the cultivatory possession of property measuring 18 bighas 16 biswas and had appointed an employee Sh.
Rafeeq Ahmad as Caretaker in the year 1980. He allowed Sh. Rafeeq Ahmad to live with his family members in the servants quarter of the suit property. The site plan Ex. PW-1/10 has also been annexed. After the death of Sh. Rafeeq Ahmad, the defendants No.1 to 8 continued in the possession of the suit property despite several requests of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1, 4, 5,7 & 8 on the other hand, in their combined written statement admitted that Rafeeq Ahmad was in cultivatory possession of the suit property and at the same time stating that the property to the extent of 2 bigha 8 biswas belonged to one Ms. Rajinder Kaur Kandhari. They stated that Rafeeq Ahmad was on rent in the remaining portion under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- for the agricultural land and Rs.100/- for the room. Defendant No.3 Raees Ahmad, on the other hand, in his written statement CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 18 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors admitted the plaintiff's right regarding cultivatory possessory rights in the land measuring 2 bigha & 8 biswas since 1978.
The defendant no.3 also admitted that the entire land measuring 18 bigha 16 biswa had been mutated in the name of the plaintiff in the Revenue Record i.e. Jamabandi as well as Khasra Girdawari. Defendant No. 3 also admitted the fact that Rafeeq Ahmad was engaged as a Chowkidar-cum-Caretaker to look after and manage the day to day affairs of the plaintiff at suit property and he had been working with the plaintiff till his death. Defendant No.3, in his written statement, also admitted that the plaintiff had permitted the father of the defendants No. 2 to 8 to reside in the two rooms, one courtyard and one small kitchen. The defendant No.3 had shifted before his marriage from the suit property. He further admitted in his written statement that when the mother of the defendants No.2 to 8 had fallen ill, all the expenses of the treatment were borne by the plaintiff. He also admitted that the plaintiff was very kind to his deceased father and also helped his father financially while his sister's marriage was solemnized. Defendant No.3, in his written statement, also stated that despite the fact that relation between his father and plaintiff was that of employer and employee the plaintiff used to take care of all his family's needs to the extent that he even allowed the mother and brothers of the defendant No.3 to continue staying in the property till the completion of rituals after the death of his father Rafeeq Ahmad.
The defendant no.3 submitted that he was not liable to pay any damages or mesne profit as he was never in occupation of the suit premises nor was using the same unauthorizedly. The reply filed by the defendant to the notice had nothing to do with defendant no.3 and neither he was claiming any right qua the property in queiton. He CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 19 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors further stated that the other defendants were occupying the property and they were liable to pay damages and mesne profit.
30.On the other hand, defendant no.1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 took the defence that they were in possession of suit property by virtue of their father being the tenant under the ownership of the plaintiff.
All the documents of the defendant have been perused and he has not placed on record any lease agreement, rent receipt or anything to show that he or his father were the tenant of the plaintiff.
31.The landlord/plaintiff has annexed his title documents which is Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 which are the sale deed dated 24.11.1978 and sale deed dated 08.12.1978 made by Suprabha Sawhney in favour of plaintiff Ravinder Kumar Ahuja for land admeasuring 7 bighas 16 biswas and 8 bighas and 12 bishwas respectively. Each of the sale deed was executed upon payment of consideration of Rs.48,000/- each.
32.The defendant no.8 in his written statement took the completely contrary stand by saying that plaintiff was not the owner of the property. The defendant no.8 in his written statement stated that he was in possession of part of the suit property as a cultivatory possessor and the remaining property was taken on rent from the plaintiff by his father whereas in his cross examination, defendant no.8 entirely changed his version stating that the plaintiff used to collect rent on behalf of Surender Singh Ahuja and that his father was the tenant of one Surender Singh Ahuja vide a registered rent deed which he could produce in the court. However, the defendant no.8 could not produce any registered rent deed to substantiate his averment.
CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 20 of 33Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors
33.The defendant no.8 has taken two different stands in his written statement and his cross examination but has not been able to produce any evidence to prove that he was the tenant or who his landlord was Surender Kumar Ahuja. The witness cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. On one hand in his written statement he states that his father was the tenant of Ravinder Kumar Ahuja and used to pay a rent of Rs.800/- per month for the land and Rs.100/- per month for the room and on the other hand in his deposition he states that his father was the tenant of one Surender Singh Ahuja vide a registered rent deed which he could not produce in the court.
34.Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that it is a settled position of law that once a tenant denies the title of a landlord, the tenant landlord relationship ceases to exist and the tenant has to be evicted from the premises. Learned counsel has referred to the landmark judgment of Sheela Vs Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (2002) 3 SCC 375 wherein it has been held that " in our opinion, denial of landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant is an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord and hence is a ground for eviction of tenant within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. To amount to such denial or disclaimer, as would entail forfeiture of tenancy rights and incur the liability to be evicted, the tenant should have renounced his character as tenant and in clear and unequivocal terms set up title of the landlord in himself or in a third party. A tenant bona fide calling upon the landlord to prove his ownership or putting the landlord to proof of his title so as to protect CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 21 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors himself (i.e. the tenant) or to earn a protection made available to him by Rent Control Law but without disowning his character of possession over the tenancy premises as tenant cannot be said to have denied the title of landlord or disclaimed the tenancy. Such an act of the tenant does not attract applicability of Section 12(1)(c) abovesaid. It is the intention of the tenant, as culled out from the nature of the plea raised by him, which is determinative of its vulnerability".
35.In case titled as Kundan Mal Vs Guru Dutta 1989 SCC (1) 552 it has been held that "the principle of forfeiture on disclaimer is rounded on the rule that a man cannot approbate and repro-bate at the same time. Since the consequence of applying the rule is very serious, it must be held that the denial has to be clear and in unequivocal terms".
36.From the above discussion, the court has come to the inference that the defendant has not been able to show that he was the tenant but the plaintiff has been able to prove by bringing on record his title documents that he was the owner of the land measuring 18 bighas and 16 bishwas in Khasra No. 1570/1 (3-18), 1571/1 (3-18), 1532/1 (2-08), 1733/1 (1-08), 1737/1 (3-12) & 1737/2 (1-04) by virtue of sale deed Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2.
37.With respect to the remaining 2 bighas and 8 bishwas, the defendant no.8 stated that their father was in cultivatory possession of the said land since several years. The said land in khasra no.1732/2 (1-12) and 1732/3 (0-16) as per the revenue record i.e. jamabandi and khasra girdawari Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/3A, Ex.PW1/3B and Ex.PW1/3C respectively was in the name of the plaintiff. It has been held in the CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 22 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors landmark judgment of Pratap Singh v Shiv Ram (2020) 11 SCC 242 that "In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Jamabandi, under Section 32 of the 1954 Act as well as Khasra Girdawari, under Section 34 of 1954 Act, both are record-of-rights in terms of Section 32 of the 1954 Act, and have statutory presumption of truth. How that presumption can be inferred has come up for consideration before this Court in Harish Chander and Others v. Ghisa Ram and Another3. This Court held that the entries in the Jamabandi carry presumption of truth but such presumption is rebuttable. Once that presumption is raised, still another comes to the aid of respondent No. 1 by reason of the rule contained in Section 109 of the Evidence Act, namely, that when two persons have been shown to stand to each other in the relationship of landlord and tenant, the burden of proving that such relationship has ceased, is on the party who so asserts. It was held as under:
"2. ......Apart from the oral evidence there is no material on the record which may indicate the falsity of any of the entries in the revenue records and we are of the opinion that the lower courts were fully justified in relying on them.
6. No suspicion can attach to the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60, nor have the contents of that document been assailed before us. A presumption of truth attaches to those entries in view of the provisions of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. That presumption is no doubt rebuttable but no attempt has been made to displace it. Further, once that presumption is raised, still another comes to the aid of Respondent 1 by reason of the rule contained in Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, namely, that when two persons 3 (1981) 1 SCC 431 have been shown to stand to each other in the relationship of landlord and tenant, the burden of proving that such CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 23 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors relationship has ceased, is on the party who so asserts. It may therefore be legitimately presumed that the plaintiff continued to possess the land as a tenant till the institution of the suit."
The present is a case where no relationship of landlord and tenant is mentioned in the revenue record though required in terms of Section 32(2)(a) of 1954 Act. In the absence of entry in the revenue record, which is also expected to contain the entry of rent and possession, the tenancy cannot be treated to be in existence only on the basis of oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the defendant. The burden of proving the relationship was on the defendant. Such burden cannot be said to be rebutted only by oral evidence. The witnesses may lie but the documents do not, is a golden rule. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. The oral evidence can always be adduced contrary to the revenue record but such oral testimony will not be sufficient to hold that the statutory presumption stands rebutted.
19. This Court in Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors.4 held that the entries in the revenue record ought to be generally accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of 4 (1976) 3 SCC 642 correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent entries. This Court held as under:
14. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 24 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title."
The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously (Vishwa Vijai Bharti's case) or where such entry has not been made by following the prescribed procedure (Bhimappa Channappa Kapali (Dead) by LRS. v. Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda (Dead) by LRS. and Others 8). Even in Guru Amarjit Singh, where thirty years old lease deed was produced, this Court had not accepted the proof of the relationship between landowner and tenant in absence of receipt of payment of rent.
24. Therefore, we find that the presumption of truth attached to the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed. It will not be proper to rely on the oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence vis-a-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level.
38.In the case at hand, the plaintiff's have produced the revenue record and the defendants have failed to rebutt the said records and the defendant has not been able to show that they and not the plaintiff were in the cultivatory possession of the suit property.
39.In fact, in July 2016 the defendant filed a suit under section 85 of Delhi Land Reforms Act against Smt. Rajender Kaur Kandhari and made a CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 25 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors claim that they were the actual cultivators and in physical possession of the land measuring 2 bighas and 8 bishwas. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as he was the actual person in cultivatory possession and the learned SDM vide order dated 19.05.2017 (Ex.PW1/35) dismissed the petition of the defendants holding that their claim to the suit property was totally frivolous. The learned SDM in his order also observed that the present defendant had not filed any revenue record in their favour and neither could produce any copy of the applications filed before the revenue authorities. The learned SDM further observed that the possession of defendant no.2 (present plaintiff) over the said land was clear and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The SDM in his order Ex.PW1/35 specifically held as under :-
On considered view and after hearing the arguments in details, it is noted by this court that the petitioners states that he is in cultivatory possession of the suit land for the last four decades. He also presents some documentary evidence for the same. However, they have not filed any revenue record in their favour. Moreover, while the petitioners have claimed that they informed the revenue authorities of their cultivator possession, they have not presented any copies of applications to this effect.
It can be seen in the documents filed by the defendant no.2 that defendant no.2 is recorded as the cultivator of the suit land in the Khatauni of 1990-91 of village Chhattarpur. Also, the defendant no.2 has filed the khasra girdawari of the year 1985 and 2014, 2015 and 2016 wherein he recorded as the cultivator. Thus, on perusal of the revenue records, the possession of the defendant no.2 over the said land is clear.CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 26 of 33
Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors Thus, it is held that the claim of the petition to the suit land is indeed frivolous and it is deemed fit that it be dismissed on merits.
40.The defendant no.8 has also not been able to show by any document that he or his father was in cultivatory possession of 2 bighas and 8 bishwas of land in khasra no.1732/2 (1-12) and 1732/3 (0-16).
41.Defendant no.3 and 7 have acknowledged in their written statement that their father was only a caretaker and the other defendants have not been able to prove the tenancy. It is matter of common practice that no agreement or contract is entered into by a landlord or an owner with the caretaker and on the other hand whenever there is a tenancy, there is a mandatory requirement under the law to enter into a lease deed. The plaintiff has throughout his plaint and evidence maintained that Rafeeq Ahmad/father of the defendant was a caretaker and the defendant has stated that Rafeeq Ahmad was tenant of the plaintiff. The stand taken by defendant that his father was a tenant shifts the onus to prove the same upon the defendants. Defendants have not been able to show that Rafeeq Ahmad was the tenant. Defendant no.3 and 7 have also supported the plaintiff's stand saying that their father had been employed as a caretaker of the suit property by the plaintiff and plaintiff being an employer and kind hearted man also used to help the father of the defendant and his family in times of illness and other eventualities also.
42.Hence, issue no.1 stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, as prayed for in prayer CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 27 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors
(i) and (ii) of the plaint. Defendants are thereby directed to remove their belongs lying in the premises and to vacate the suit property shown red in the site plan Ex.PW1/10. The defendants are also directed not to destroy, damage or remove the crops, vegetable, fruits, plants and trees present on the suit property before vacating the same. Issue no.2 and 3 too accordingly stand decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
43.Now, I shall decide the issue no. 4, 5 and 6 together as the same are interconnected, which are as under :-
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.3,33,334/- as damages/mesne profits as prayed in clause (iii) ? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the amount as claimed in the issue no.4? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per month as mesne profits and usage charges and damages as prayed in clause (iv) ? OPP Apart from the observations already made by the court in while deciding issue no.1, 2 and 3, the court has also observed that defendant in his written statement stated that while making the wall, Rafeeq Ahmad also covered the area of 2 bighas and 8 bishwas inside the boundary wall. The court finds it hard to believe that why Rafeeq Ahmad made the boundary wall and the rooms alongwith kitchen, toilet and bathroom from his own pocket when he was merely a tenant.
It is further a doubtful proposition made by the defendant that he covered 2 bighas and 8 bishwas also inside the boundary wall despite knowing that the same did not belong to the plaintiff. The court also is CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 28 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors intrigued by the statement of the defendant as why a person would fuse lands belonging to two different people within a single boundary wall at his own expenses and specially when he is not even an owner and only a tenant.
44.It is also a matter of record that the hon'ble Delhi High Court passed an acquisition award in 1987 qua the suit property and the plaintiff challenged the said award before the hon'ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 01.12.2014 set aside the said award. The hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.30135/2015 also dismissed the petition of the DDA which was filed against the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the acquisition was cancelled. Both the orders have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8 respectively. The orders of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court establish the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. The order of learned SDM (Ex.PW1/35) also held that the plaintiff was the cultivator of the property and was in possession of the same as already discussed above and the said order has also not been challenged and had attained finality.
45.Defendant in his cross examination specifically admitted that neither his father nor any of the defendant's name was present in the revenue record. He could not even produce any receipt with respect to his father's tenancy. Hence, the defendant could neither prove the tenancy nor cultivatory possession on the suit land. Hence, they were mere licensees till the death of Rafeeq Ahmad and till the time they were permitted to stay in the premises by the plaintiff and.
CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 29 of 33Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors It is a settled law that license is neither transferable nor heritable and it is a bare permission without any transfer and it does not create any right in favour of the licensee. Hence, as already held in issue no.1, the defendant was not a tenant and by virtue of their father/Rafeeq Ahmad being a licensee, after the death of Rafeeq Ahmad, the license also came to an end and the entitlement of the defendants to stay in the suit property also came to an end. As Rafeeq Ahmad died on 28.02.2016, the occupation of the defendant in the suit property become illegal and unauthorized after the death of Rafeeq Ahamd and more so after 14.04.2016 which is the date till the plaintiff permitted the defendant to stay in the suit premises. Thereafter, the defendant is liable to pay mesne profit/useage charges of the property and damages qua the suit property. The plaintiff has sought damages from 19.05.2016 as he terminated the license by sending a notice and notice period expired on 19.05.2016. The plaintiff sought Rs.3,33,334/- for 51 days and Rs.2 lacs per month from the date of filing of the suit till the day the suit property is handed over to the plaintiff.
46.Although, the plaintiff has not brought any evidence on record to show the existing rate of rent in the area but the court cannot ignore the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2016 and is being decided in 2024. Hence, keeping in view the inflation and the escalating rates of rent, all the defendants except defendant no.3 are directed to pay mesne profit/damages @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month for unathorized occupation by all the defendants except defendant no.3 starting from 19.05.2016 till the date the possession is handed over to the plaintiff. Accordingly, issue no.4 and 6 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. For May 2016, proportionate mesne profits for 12 days CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 30 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors shall be paid.
As far as issue no.5 is concerned, keeping in view the market rate of interest, the defendants except defendant no.3 are further directed to pay interest @ 12% from the date of judgment till its realization. Issue no.5 also accordingly stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
47.Now, I shall decide the issue no.7 which is as under :-
7. Whether the suit is hit by provisions of Section 184, 185 and 186 of Delhi Land Reforms Act ? OPD The defendants have failed to prove that the suit is barred under section 184, 185 and 186 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. It has also been proved that the plaintiff has been in actual and physical possession of the entire suit property since 1978. The present suit is a simplicitor suit for injunction to remove defendants from the servant quarters from the property alongwith recovery of damages. Such a suit does not fall under any of the heads enumerated in schedule 1 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. As such, the suit is not of a nature that is required to be adjudicated by a Revenue Court and consequently, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred under provision of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Hence, the issue no.7 stands decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
48.Now, I shall decide the issue no.8 which is as under :-
8. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD The present issue had already been decided when the court adjudicated order VII Rule 11 CPC application filed by the defendant.CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 31 of 33
Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have filed the suit for possession and should have paid ad valorum court fees on the value of the suit property. The Ld. Predecessor Court while relying on the landmark judgment of Sant Lal Jain Vs Avatar Singh dismissed the application of the defendant vide order dated 03.11.2017. The review application filed against the said order was also dismissed on 12.12.2017. The court specifically held that where a licensor approaches the court for an injunction within a reasonable time after the license is terminated, he is entitled to file a simplicitor suit for injunction. The court further held that the license stood terminated on 28.02.2016 and the suit was filed soon thereafter on 11.07.2016 which was filed without any delay and hence the plaintiff could file a simplicitor suit for injunction. The issue of court fees had been already decided and had therefore attained finality. Being a simplicitor suit for injunction, the plaintiff has already sufficiently valued the suit and paid adequate court fees. Hence, issue no.8 also stands decided in faovur of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
49.From the above discussion, all the above issues stand decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
50.In view of the aforesaid discussion, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. All the defendants are directed to remove their belongings lying in the premises and to vacate the suit property shown in red in the site plan Ex.PW1/10. The defendants are also directed not to destroy, damage or remove the crops, vegetable, fruits, plants and trees present on the suit property before vacating the CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 32 of 33 Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors same.
All the defendants except defendant no.3, are further directed to pay pay mesne profit/damages @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month for unauthorized occupation starting with effect from 19.05.2016 till the date the possession is handed over to the plaintiff. The defendants except defendant no.3, are further directed to pay interest @ 12% from the date of judgment till its realization.
51.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The present decree is passed subject to filing of deficient court fees, if any.
52.No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
PURVA
PURVA SAREEN
SAREEN Date:
Announced in open court 2024.10.23
15:11:38
+0530
On 21st October, 2024 (Purva Sareen)
District Judge-01, South,
Saket District Courts,
New Delhi
CS No.8445/2016 (Old No.66/16) Page 33 of 33
Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Vs Mst. Sahida & Ors