Delhi District Court
Lachhi Ram vs Ram Prasad on 4 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ALKA SINGH,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
DLWT030002492019
Ex. No. 81/2019
Sh. Lachhi Ram,
S/o Late Sh. Har Dayal,
R/o 381-C, Part-III,
Gali No. 42, Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi. ...Decree Holder/petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ram Prashad,
S/o Sh. Rudal Yadav,
R/o B-25, Gali No. 19,
Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar,
New Delhi.
(Last known address)
2. Mohd. Farid Ahmad
R/o B-25, Gali No. 19,
Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar,
New Delhi. ... Judgment Debtor/respondent
3. Ms. Mehrum Nisha
W/o Md. Zarif,
R/o H. No. 25, Nangli Vihar Extn.
Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar,
New Delhi-110043. .... Objector
Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 1 of 11
Date of filing Objections : 17.05.2019
Date of Order : 04.04.2025
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the objections raised by the objector Ms. Mehrum Nisha W/o Md. Zarif U/o XXI Rule 99 r/w Sec. 151 CPC.
2. Arguments have already been heard on the objections, on behalf of both the parties and record perused.
3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are as under:-
That the Decree Holder/Petitioner (Lachhi Ram S/o Late Sh. Har Dayal) had filed a petition U/s 14 (1)(b) DRC Act against the respondents/JDs namely (1) Ram Parshad S/o Sh. Rudal Yadav and (2) Mohd. Farid stating that the suit premises plot no. 25, Block-B, Gali no.19, Nangli Vihar Extension, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi were purchased by the DH/Petitioner from previous owner Sh. Roshan Lal vide agreement to sell dated 24.02.2003, GPA and Will dated 24.02.2003 and the respondent no. 1/JD (Ram Parshad) was the pre-existing tenant of the previous owner in the suit premises and after the DH/ had purchased the suit premises, the respondent no.1/JD (Ram Parshad) paid the rent to the petitioner/DH till 31.08.2003 and the DH/Petitioner issued legal notice to the respondent no.1/JD on 16.04.2005 for the recovery of arrears of rent and the petitioner/DH filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for an amount of Rs 29,000/- on 27.01.2006 against the respondent no.1/JD and the same was decided ex-parte on 24.03.2008 in favour of the petitioner/DH. The petitioner/DH also filed execution proceedings against the respondent no.1/JD from where he came to know that the respondent no.1/JD had illegally sublet the suit premises to respondent no.2/JD (Mohd. Farid).Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 2 of 11
Thereafter, the petitioner/DH filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and consequential reliefs against the respondents which was proceeded ex-parte and the said suit was withdrawn by the petitioner/DH on 12.07.2017 due to technical reasons. The DH/Petitioner submitted that the respondents illegally made alterations in the suit premises and constructed an unauthorized floor in the suit premises and in this background the petitioner/DH filed a petition U/s 14 (1)(b) DRC Act against the respondent no.1 and 2/JDs seeking an eviction order against the respondents.
4. The record shows that summons of the petition were served upon the respondent no.1 and 2/JDs through affixation as well as publication and since despite this the respondent no.1 and 2/JDs failed to appear before the Court and to contest the petition of the Petitioner (Lachhi Ram), the respondents no.1 and 2/JDs were proceeded ex-parte and after leading ex-parte evidence on behalf of the petitioner, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, vide his judgment/order dated 19.12.2018 held that the petitioner/DH had satisfied all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(b) DRC Act and consequently, an eviction order was passed in favour of the petitioner/DH and against the respondents no.1 and 2 in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. One room, common latrine and open courtyard at plot no. 25, Block-B, Gali no.19, Nangli Vihar Extension, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi as shown in red color in the site plan attached with the petition.
5. Thereafter an execution petition was filed by the petitioner/DH (Lacchi Ram) against the respondent no.1 and 2/JDs seeking execution of the said judgment/order dated 19.12.2018 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court as well as to issue warrants of possession qua the aforesaid tenanted premises against the respondent no. 1 and 2/JDs. The record further shows that vide order Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 3 of 11 dated 05.04.2019, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, warrants of possession were directed to be issued against the respondent no.1 and 2/JDs qua the tenanted premises i.e. One room, common latrine and open courtyard at plot no. 25, Block-B, Gali no.19, Nangli Vihar Extension, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi as shown in red color in the site plan attached with the petition. The report of the concerned Bailiff dated 12.07.2019 shows that only possession of part of the said property i.e. ground floor was given to the DH on 30.04.2019 and since the JDs/objector had constructed illegal portion/room above the tenanted premises, for this reason, the complete possession could not be handed over to the DH.
6. Thus, in the said background the present objections under order 21 Rule 99 r/w Section 151 CPC has been filed by the applicant/objector Mehrum Nisha W/o Md. Zarif before this Court stating that on 30.04.2019, police officials alongwith some officers of the Court visited the property and broke open the lock of the ground floor of the property on the pretext that there is some order from the Courts. Thereafter, the officials put a lock on the ground floor of the said property and all the articles of the applicant/objector are lying in the ground floor of the said property. However, the relatives of the applicant/objector are residing on the first and second floor of the said property. The said applicant/objector Mehrum Nisha W/o Md. Zarif is the owner of built up property bearing no. 25, admeasuring 30 sq. yds. out of khasra no. 45/24/02 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Baprola, New Delhi colony known as Nangli Vihar Extension, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi-43, in view of various documents executed from time to time and the chain showing the various sale-purchase from time to time. The applicant/objector came to know about the present petition when the officials had visited the suit property for execution proceedings. The applicant/objector is a bonafide purchaser of the Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 4 of 11 property and as such is entitled to peaceful and vacant possession of the same and hence by way of the present objection petition, the applicant/objector Mehrum Nisha W/o Md. Zarif has prayed that the applicant/objector be put in possession of the ground floor of property bearing no. 25 admeasuring 30 sq. yds. out of khasra no. 45/24/02 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Baprola, New Delhi colony known as Nangli Vihar Extension, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi-43.
7. Reply to the said objections has also been filed by the DH/non-applicant (Lacchi Ram) raised by the applicant/objector wherein the DH/non-applicant stated the same facts as of his execution petition. It is claimed that the objector Mehrum Nisha has no concern with the suit property in any manner and the present objection has been filed by the objector in connivance with the JDs. That the objections filed by the objector being vague, misconceived and without any merit are liable to be dismissed and the same is misuse of process of law as the applicant/objector is neither the owner nor having any right, title or interest qua the property in question. That on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, the applicant is claiming herself to be the owner of the suit property. Thus, the objections being false and frivolous are liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. It may be noted that both the parties had also filed their respective title documents qua the suit property in support of their submissions.
9. While deciding the objections filed by the objector, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide his separate order dated 15.03.2023, observed that since the objector/applicant has claimed herself to be the owner of built up property bearing no. 25 admeasuring 30 sq. yds. out of khasra no. 45/24/02 situated in the revenue estate of village Baprola, New Delhi colony known as Nangli Vihar Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 5 of 11 Extension, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi-43 on the basis of various documents executed from time to time and the DH has also claimed to be the owner/landlord of the said property and further the judgment/order dated 19.12.2018 was passed in favour of the DH after the respondents/JDs were proceeded ex-parte in the present case and evidence was led on behalf of the DH/petitioner only, hence, it is necessary that the rival claims of both the DH as well as objector in the present case are decided by this Court after taking evidence and examining their respective cases in detail and on the basis of the veracity of the documents placed on record. Accordingly for this reason, the objector as well as the DH are directed to lead evidence in support of their respective cases before this Court for the purpose of deciding their contentions qua the title and possession of the suit property on the basis of documents placed on record by them. In the meanwhile both the DH as well as the objector were also directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit premises and they were further directed not to alter its position or change its structure till the disposal of the objections filed by the objector Mehrum Nisha.
10. Thereafter, the following issues were framed for adjudication in the present matter which are as under:-
ISSUES:-
1. Whether the objector Mehrunisa is the owner of the built up property bearing No. 25, admeasuring 30 sq. yds., out of Khasra no. 45/24/02, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Baprola, New Delhi colony known as Nangli Vihar Extension, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi-43 by virtue of the documents executed in her favour from time to time ? (OPO) Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 6 of 11
2. Whether the Objector Mehrunisa was in possession of the ground floor of the said property at the time of execution of the decree in question ? (OPO)
3. Whether the Objector Mehrunisa is the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and as such entitled to peaceful and vacant possession of the same ? (OPO)
4. Relief.
11. Accordingly, the Objector Mehrum Nisha @ Mehroom Nisha examined herself as OW-1 by way of affidavit Ex. OW-1/A. In such evidence, she reiterated and reaffirmed the stand taken in objections. Further, she placed on record various documents (All the documents have been exhibited with exhibition of Ex. PW in place of OW. The documents may be read as OW in place of PW) i.e. Photocopy of GPA dated 02.08.1995 as Mark-A, Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 26.02.2003 as Ex. OW-1/2 (OSR) (From page no. 19 to 25), Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 26.02.2003 as Ex. OW-1/3 (OSR) (From page no. 26 to 36), Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 16.02.2007 as Ex. OW-1/4 (OSR) (From page no. 37 to 44) (The document Ex. PW-1/3 (colly.) be read as OW-1/4 (Colly), Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 08.01.2010 as Ex. OW-1/5 (OSR) (From page no. 45 to
52) (The document Ex. PW-1/3 (colly.) be read as OW-1/5 (Colly), Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 23.01.2012 as Ex. OW-1/6 (OSR) (From page no. 53 to 60) (The document Ex. PW-1/3 (colly.) be read as OW-1/6 (Colly), Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 02.08.2015 as Ex. OW-1/7 (OSR) (From page no. 61 to 73) (The document Ex. PW-1/3 (colly.) be read as OW-1/7 (Colly), Photocopy of General Power of Attorney dated 08.06.2016 as Ex. OW-1/8 (OSR) (From page no. 74 to 86) (The document Ex. PW-1/3 (colly.) be read as OW-1/8 (Colly). OW-1 had been cross-examined at Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 7 of 11 length by Ld. Counsel for DH.
12. Objector has also examined Sh. Jarif Ahmed S/o Md. Sharif Ahmed as OW-2, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. OW-2/A and he was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel fro DH.
13. Objector has further examined Sh. Robin S/o Late Vijay Solanki as OW-3, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. OW-3/A and he was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel fro DH.
14. Perusal of the record reveals that on 04.10.2024, the objector closed her evidence and Ld. counsel for the DH had submitted that the DH did not want to lead any evidence and accordingly, DH evidence was closed and matter was fixed for arguments. Record also reveals that on 23.12.2024, arguments were heard on behalf of the objector and the opportunity of the DH to argue the matter orally was closed, however, he was given liberty to file written arguments, which was thus filed.
15. It is clear that both the parties i.e. DH as well as objector are claiming ownership of the property based on certain chain of documents, such as, agreement to sell, GPA, Will etc. and none of the parties have any conveyance deed in this regard. Accordingly, the Court shall consider the merits of these documents only, to ascertain how genuine these documents are which have been relied upon by the parties to stake claim over the subject property.
16. Upon scrutiny of these chain of documents, it is found that one previous owner which is common in the chains of both the parties is one Mr. Roshan Lal from whom the DH has claimed to have purchased this property vide registered Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 8 of 11 GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and Will and the same bear the thumb impression of the testator/ executant Roshan Lal, the signatures of the witnesses and also the signature of DH, as second party. In all these documents the Roshan Lal has affixed his thumb impression. In this chain of documents from Roshan Lal to DH, one witness is Bhaiya Lal.
17. Now, lets come to the chain of documents of the objector, from the chain starting from Roshan Lal. In these documents wherein the executant is Roshan Lal, he has executed these documents in favour of Bhaiya Lal and the signature of this second party/ purchaser Bhaiya Lal is same as the signature of the witness Bhaiya Lal as above mentioned in the preceding para i.e. the property documents from Roshan Lal to DH. However, this chain of documents from Roshan Lal to Bhaiya Lal, the signature of the executant/first party/ Roshan Lal is conspicuously missing and the same also does not bear his thumb impression rather only the name of Roshan Lal is mentioned in Capital Letters in a bracket at the end of the document and it can be clearly seen that Roshan Lal has not signed these documents or has impressed his thumb impression. Further, the said document is also not registered and is only a notarized document whereas the chain of documents before Roshan Lal, the copies of which have been filed on record by the objector herself are registered. The documents of DH from Roshan Lal to him are also registered documents and the same also predates the chain of documents from Roshan Lal to Bhaiya Lal as produced by the objector.
18. Furthermore, in the last chain of documents in which the objector is the second party, thereby being the purchaser of the property which is Ex. OW-1/A (OSR) i.e. from Vijay Singh to objector, these documents are also not registered and they also do not bear the signatures of the objector or her thumb impression as is also clear from her cross-examination and therefore, the documents have Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 9 of 11 not been proved in its true sense because neither the executor of these documents nor even any of the witnesses were ever called as a witness to testify and to be examined on oath in Court. Same is also true with respect to the other previous purchasers, one of whom being the husband of the objector Sh. Jarif Ahmed, who was examined as OW-2 and who also testified that when he purchased the property by way of these chain of documents, he also did not sign it and thus, his chain of documents were also not proved. The other witness examined by the objector i.e. OW-3 was some third party, who was neither the witness to any of the documents of the objector nor was he present at the time of execution of such documents. Hence, the documents which are being relied upon by the objector are faulty and not a reliable piece of evidence to certify her claim as being the owner of the subject property.
19. Further, some other discrepancies are also present in the said chain of documents of the objector, one of which was pointed out by the LAC for the DH during cross-examination of objector i.e. on the Will dated 06.06.2016 Ex. OW-1/A, the name of the witness was different from the one who has signed the same as a witness. In view of these, it is apparent that the documents relied upon by the objector suffered from various incongruities and lacks credibility.
20. Thus, to answer the issues framed by this Court, it can be held with ease that the objector has been failed to discharge the burden of proof of issue no. 1 in her favour i.e. she has failed to prove that she is the owner of the built up property bearing No. 25, admeasuring 30 sq. yds., out of Khasra no. 45/24/02, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Baprola, New Delhi colony known as Nangli Vihar Extension, Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi-43 by virtue of the documents executed in her favour from time to time. It is also clear from the chain of documents produced by the objector that the description of the property Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 10 of 11 is also changed from the original 60 sq. yds. to 30 sq. yds. and whereas the documents of DH are regarding the 60 sq. yds., the objector has not even been successful to prove her claim regarding the 30 sq. yds. of the said property.
21. Similarly, the answer to issue no. 2, the onus of proving which was also on the objector is in negative as she has led no evidence at all to show that she was in possession of the property at the time of the execution of the decree in question.
22. For the abovestated reasons and discussions the answer to the issue no. 3 is also in negative i.e. the objector has failed to show or establish that she was a bonafide purchaser of the suit property for lack of evidence etc. Hence, the objections filed by the objector are dismissed and disposed of.
Put up for clarifications/ further proceedings on 23.05.2025.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 4th April, 2025
This Order consists of 11 signed pages. Digitally
signed by
ALKA ALKA
Date:
SINGH
SINGH 2025.04.05
13:18:18
+0530
(ALKA SINGH)
Additional Rent Controller
West District Courts, Delhi.
Ex. No. 81/2019 Lachhi Ram Vs. Ram Prasad (JD) and Ms. Mehrum Nisha (objector) Page 11 of 11