Delhi District Court
Narender Vats vs Bachu Ram on 29 August, 2023
-:: 1 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-03 (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT010008252018
RCA No. 10/2018
In the matter of :-
Sh. Narender Vats
S/o Sh. Krishan Chand Vats
R/o Flat No. 24, MCD Colony
Jahangir Puri, Delhi - 110033. ....... Appellant
Versus
Sh. Bachu Ram
S/o Sh. Bhagwan
R/o A-159, Jahangir Puri
Delhi - 110033. ......Respondent
Date of Institution 24.01.2018
Date of Final Argument 29.08.2023
Date of pronouncement of 29.08.2023
judgment
APPEAL UNDER ORDER 96 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 09.06.2017
RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 1 of 13
-:: 2 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment/decree dated 09.06.2017, passed by Ld. ASCJ, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS No. 534841/16 titled as "Sh. Narender Vats Vs. Sh. Bachu Ram" whereby the Ld. ASCJ dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant herein.
2. The brief facts of the case are verbatim reproduced herein below:
2.1 It is stated that the plaintiff purchased the property bearing No. A-159, Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033 from the defendant vide a registered Sale Agreement dated 10/05/2006, vide registration No. 7048, volume No. 377, page No. 102 to 107, Sub-Registrar-VI (A), measuring area 25 Sq. Yds. It is stated that the plaintiff intended to give the said property on rent. The defendant approached the plaintiff and took the said property on rent.
2.2 That said tenancy commenced by written rent agreement dated 10.05.2006 between the parties wherein the plaintiff executed the said rent agreement for a period of 11 months from May 2006 to April 2007 with rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month along with water and electricity charges.
2.3 It is stated that in April 2007 as per then market rates, after a mutual agreement between plaintiff and defendant, the rent of Rs.5,500/- per month for two years i.e. from April 2007 to March 2009 was agreed between the parties and it is also agreed that after completion of two years a further sum of Rs. 500/- will be increased in the rent every year.
2.4 It is stated that in April 2007 when this tenancy was orally renewed RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 2 of 13
-:: 3 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023 between the parties, the plaintiff requested the defendant to make a registered rent deed in extension of the previous rent deed but the defendant insisted that there is no requirement of any rent deed as it will save unnecessary expenses. That on the defendant's said request, plaintiff got agreed to provide the defendant said property on rent for a further period of 2 years without entering into any written / registered rent deed.
2.5 It is stated that from April 2007 till April 2009 the defendant paid the rent @ Rs. 5500/- per month. But after 2009, the defendant started defaulting in the payment of the rent.It is stated that in/till March 2012, a huge amount of rent got accumulated on the defendant (pending rent since May 2009) and when the plaintiff approached the defendant to vacate the said premises because the defendant was not paying rent from last Thirty Six Months. The defendant informed the plaintiff that defendant is in financial constraint and would only be able to clear entire outstanding of rent if some time is given to the defendant and will also leave premises after some time but the defendant failed to do the same.
2.6 It is stated that plaintiff got agreed to wait till April 2012 for clearance of entire outstanding rent from May 2009 to March 2012. That the defendant further assured that the entire rent from October 2008 (2009) to JUNE 2012 would be paid in one shot in the middle of April 2012 but meanwhile, whenever the defendant would have some amount, the defendant will pay the same to the plaintiff. It is stated that in the middle of April 2012, when the plaintiff approached the defendant for taking the pending rent since May 2009, the defendant failed to pay even a single RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 3 of 13
-:: 4 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023 penny and again requested the plaintiff for some more time.
2.7 It is stated that a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- is due of the said premises from the period of May 2009 till April 2012:
A. Unpaid rent from May 2009 till April 2010 @ Rs. 6000/- per month (Rs. 6000/- x 12 = Rs. 72,000/-) B. Unpaid rent from May 2010 till April 2011 @ Rs. 6500/- per month (Rs.6,500/- x 12 = 78,000/-) C. Unpaid rent from May 2011 till May 2012 @ Rs. 7000/- per month (Rs. 7000/- x 12 = Rs. 84000/-) Total (A+B+C) = Rs. 23,4000/- (Rupees Two Lac Thirty Four Thousand Only).
2.8 It is stated that the plaintiff was no longer interested to continue with the defendant's tenancy and the plaintiff constrained a legal notice dated 28.06.2012 through registered post which was duly served upon the defendant but the defendant neither complied with the said notice nor gave any reply of the same. Hence the present suit."
3. The brief facts of written statement on behalf of Respondents / defendants are as follows:
3.1 It is stated that the suit is filed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It is stated that defendant never entered into the alleged rent agreement and never executed any general power of attorney in favour of RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 4 of 13
-:: 5 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023 plaintiff for the sake of Rs. 50,000/-.
3.2 It is stated that suit property was allotted to the defendant by DDA and since the day of allotment, the defendant is residing in the suit property along with his family. In the year 2005, the defendant approached one lady known as Madam Chaterji and requested her to borrow him a sum of Rs.
1,50,000/- for marriage of his two daughters. Madam Chaterji agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on interest @ 5% per month payable in advance. The loss of earning compelled the defendant to sought some more time for which the plaintiff and Madam Chaterji agreed on condition that the defendant has to execute a security document.
3.3 It is stated that the defendant and whole of his family is illiterate. Said Madam Chaterji took the defendant along with her in the office of an advocate and got prepared the documents but the same were not read over and never made to understand by the defendant. The defendant came to know the pendency of suit on the 12th of April, 2013 when a police official while conducting the enquiry on the complaint of defendant has informed that a civil suit is pending. The defendant has never vacated the suit property being the only available residence for the family of defendant.
3.4 It is stated that the defendant has approached the senior police officials regarding the misuse of documents and fraud committed by the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff has purchased the property vide a registered sale deed dated 10.05.2006 bearing document no. 7048. It is submitted that the plaintiff has posed that the said property was agreed to be sold for a meager RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 5 of 13
-:: 6 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023 amount of Rs. 50,000/- which is improbable as in the year 2006 the suit property was valued for Rs. 20 lac.
3.5 It is stated that at no point of time, the suit property was occupied by the plaintiff as a landlord and the defendant has never enjoyed the possession as a tenant and the alleged rent agreement is false and fabricated. It is further denied that there was monthly rent of Rs. 5,000 p.m. exclusive of water and electric charges. It is denied that the defendant has ever paid any rent to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant was paying Rs. 7,500 p.m. as interest on the borrowed sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
3.6 It is submitted that earlier the plaintiff in the relevant period upto 2009 was posing himself to be an honest money lender but he has never issued any receipt of interest received from the defendant and upto 2009 the defendant has cleared all the dues i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/-.
3.7 It is denied that the defendant has failed to pay and was liable to pay the rent to the plaintiff at any point of time. It is further denied that the defendant has an arrear of payment of rent for 36 months. It is denied that the defendant was having any business and there was huge losses and the same was ever been stated to the plaintiff.
3.8 It is further denied that the defendant has ever met the plaintiff in year 2012. It is denied that Rs. 2,34,000/- is due and outstanding against the defendant. It is further denied any notice as alleged has been served upon the defendant. It is denied that the defendant has ever been a licensee in the suit property and the plaintiff has any legal right in the suit property.
RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 6 of 13
-:: 7 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023
4. No replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
5. That from the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Trial Court framed the following issues in the suit on 18.02.2014:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession, as prayed for? (OPP) ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP) iii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.2,34,000/-being the arrears of the rent? (OPP) iv. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? (OPP) v. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? (OPD) vi. Whether suit is barred for the reasons as stated in para 3 and 4 of preliminary objections of WS ? (OPD) vii. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joining of DDA as a necessary party in the suit? OPD viii.Relief.
6. Plaintiff / respondent in order to prove his case has examined following witnesses:
6.1. PW-1 is Sh. Narender Vats, S/o Sh. Krishan chand Vats, R/o H. No.L-
RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 7 of 13
-:: 8 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023 9, Gali No. 25, Mahindra Park, Delhi-110033. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which was Ex. as PW1/1 bearing his signature at point X and X1. He relied upon the documents i.e. the general sale agreement is Ex. PW 1/A, GPA receipt is EX. PW1/B, receipt executed by the defendant as PW 1/C (Original copy of receipt is not available on record). Conveyance deed dated 24.12.2010 issued by DDA which is Ex-PW1/D. Rent agreement is EX. PW1/E. Electricity Bill is Ex. PWI/F. Legal notice dated 28.09.12 is Ex. PW1/G (Document is exhibited in the statement of PW-1 but Ex.PW1/G is not mentioned on the document) and postal receipt is Ex. PW1/H (Document is exhibited in the statement of PW-1 but Ex.PW1/H is not mentioned on the document).
6.2 PW-2 is Sh. Ravinder Chhikara, UDC from the office of Sub Registrar-VIA, Pitam Pura Delhi. He had brought the summon record. The deed of sale agreement was registered with the sub registrar VIA dated 10.05.2006 vide registration no.7048 Book no.1 Volume no. 377 at page no.102 to 107 registered in favour of Narender Vats by Bacchu Ram as mentioned in the record.
6.3 PW-3 is Sh. Gopal Krishan, Asstt. Director, LAB(h) Housing DDA, INA Vikas Sadan, Delhi. He had brought the summon record as mentioned in para no. 1 of the list of documents summoned from the DDA which is already Ex.PW1/5. The documents mentioned in para no.2 in the list of witnesses i.e. record of DDA of file no.15128 vide file no.EF12(159)78/SHS dated 24.12.2010 is available in our record and the same is already Ex.PW1/5 in the name of Sh. Narender vats.
RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 8 of 13
-:: 9 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023
7. Appellant / defendants in order to prove their case has examined following witnesses:
7.1 DW-1 is Sh. Bachu Ram S/o Sh. Shri Bhagwan R/o A-159, Jahangir Puri, Delhi - 33. He tendered his affidavit in evidence as DW-1/A bearing his signatures at points 'A' and 'B'.
8. The appellant/ plaintiff has raised the following ground of appeal in the present appeal:
i. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has sufficiently proved the execution of sale documents in his favour which led to an execution of conveyance deed dated 21.1.2011 in appellant's favour.
ii. Because while adjudicating issue no. 1, Ld. Trial Court held that as the deed of sale agreement, GPA, receipt, rent agreement all dated 10.5.2005, have been declared as null and void vide judgment dated 9.6.2017 in connected matter, titled as 'Bachu Ram Vs Narender Vats & Ors.' bearing suit no. 534725 of 2016, the relief of possession cannot be granted to the appellant. The judgment dated 9.6.2017, passed in the connected matter is also erroneous and cannot be relied into.
iii. Because the Ld. Trial Court decreed the connected suit filed by the respondent, in respondent's favour despite there being grave irregularities and inconsistency in the stand of the respondent in his cross examination in the connected suit.
RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 9 of 13
-:: 10 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023
iv. Because the Ld. Trial Court, failed to take into consideration the well known jurisprudence principle that Registered Documents carry with themselves a presumption that these documents were validly executed.
v. Because the Ld. Trial Court wrongly interpreted the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment given in "Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and another' AIR 2012 SC 206. The Ld. Trial Court, in Para no. 14 of the impugned judgement has held that "14. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the defendant had executed documents such as sale-agreement, GPA, receipt Ex. PW-I/A to Ex PW- I/C respectively with having full knowledge about their nature in favour of the plaintiff, even then these documents neither convey any title nor create any interest in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in view of the ratio of case law Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and another (Supra)". This was a completely erroneous interpretation of the case law. In fact the extract of Suraj Lamp's Case, quoted in para no. 13 of the Impugned Judgment, support the case of appellant. The said extract of judgment specifically states that if the sale documents have been used by DDA or developmental authorities to effect changes, the said changes will not be disturbed.
vi. Because the Ld. Trial Court erred by allowing cross-examination of PW2 Sh. Ravinder Chhikara, UDC from the office of Sub Registrar- VIA, Delhi and PW3 Sh. Gopal Krishan, Asstt. Director, LAB (h), DDA and relying on the cross-examination, while passing judgment dated 9.6.2017, passed in the connected matter. The afore stated witnesses RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 10 of 13
-:: 11 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023 were summoned witnesses, summoned only for production of documents and therefore in view of Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be cross examined. The Ld. Trial Court, not only allowed their cross examination by the respondent but also relied on their testimony while passing judgment against the appellant.
vii. Because the Ld. Trial failed to observe that respondent failed to prove the alleged loan transaction with Smt. Beena Chaterii. No documents were produced to support the alleged loan transaction. In fact, Smt. Beena Chaterji, the alleged loan giver, has categorically denied giving of any loan, in her deposition.
viii. It is prayed as under:
a. Call for the Trial Court Records record of Suit bearing no. 534841 of 2016 titled as "Sh. Narender Vats Vs Sh. Bachu Ram", from the court of Ld. ASCJ, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
b. Allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.6.2017 passed by Ld. ASCI in the Suit bearing no. 534841 of 2016.
c. Finally determine the Suit bearing no. 534841 of 2016 and allow the same in appellant's favour.
d. Award costs of the litigation throughout in favour of the appellant.
9. No reply filed on behalf of the respondent.
RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 11 of 13
-:: 12 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023
10. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, pleadings and documentary evidence placed on record, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court Judge. Since the connected RCA no. 11/18 is decided against the appellant, the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed. This court is in confirmity with the findings of the Ld. Trial Court, where it is held as under:-
"12. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession of the suit property. As per my findings on issue no. 1 in the connected suit bearing No. 534725 of 16 titled as Bachu Ram Vs. Narender Vats & Ors., the deed- of- sale-agreement, GPA, Receipt, rent- agreement all dated 10.05.2016 Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/E and Conveyance Deed dated 21.01.2011 Ex. PW1/D have been declared as null and void and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff can not file the present suit on the basis of rent agreement Ex. PW1/E. It has been further held that the defendant is actual allottee and owner in possession of the suit property. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of the suit property.
13. In case-law Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd., appellant Vs. State of Haryana and anr., respondents reported AIR 2012 SC 206, it has been held that:
"SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not `transfers' or `sales' and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale. Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. The said `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 12 of 13
-:: 13 ::- Dated: 29.08.2023 TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision. It was further held that:
"A SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank - 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law".
11. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
SHIVALI by SHIVALI
BANSAL
TCR to be sent back. BANSAL Date: 2023.08.29
16:54:49 +0530
Announced in open Shivali Bansal
Court on 29.08.2023 Additional District Judge-03
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
RCA No. 10/18 Narender Vats Vs. Bachu Ram & Anr. Page: 13 of 13