Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

H.K. Mitroo vs M/S. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd on 1 July, 2016

                                                                         Page 1 of 12




  IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA, ADJ­01 (SOUTH), 
                              SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS No.311/11
Unique Case ID No.02406C0053622011

H.K. Mitroo
S/o Sh. D.N. Mitroo 
R/o 29, South Part Apartment,
Kalkaji, New Delhi
                                                                  ............. Plaintiff
         Vs.

M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.
Through Sh. Rajesh Duggal, its Managing Director 
At C­161, Okhla Phase­I, 
New Delhi
                                                               ............. Defendant

     Suit for Possession, Arrears of Rent, Mesne Profits & Damages


O R D E R :

1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the application of defendant filed on 28.05.2016 U/O.7 R.11 CPC for rejection of plaint.

2. It has been stated in this application that the area, where the suit property is situated, has not been yet notified under Sec.507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and till date the property is CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

in rural area and hence the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Sec.185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereafter referred to as 'DLRA').

3. Though no formal reply to the application was filed from plaintiff's side by stating that the reply could not be got signed from the plaintiff as he was out of station, but written submissions were duly filed on behalf of plaintiff. It has been stated in the written submissions that the defendant is an unauthorized occupant of the suit premises who has tried to delay the proceedings of the present case by filing a number of applications which have been rejected by the Court and the plea of applicability of Sec.185 DLRA is not only false but also an afterthought, adopted as a dilatory tactics at a stage when the case was fixed for final arguments. It is further stated that admittedly the land in question is not agricultural land and hence DLRA is not applicable. It is also stated that as per Sec.1(2)(b) of DLRA, the said Act is not applicable to the area included in any estate owned by the Central Govt. or any local authority and as per the perpetual Lease Deed filed by the defendant alongwith the application U/O. 7 R.11 CPC, the suit property was owned by Delhi Administration and therefore the DLRA is not applicable on this land. CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

4. I have heard the arguments on the application from counsel Sh.

Pawanjeet Singh Bindra for plaintiff and Sh. Rajesh Duggal, MD of defendant (who said that he himself would be arguing as he was himself pursuing the case). I have perused the record also.

5. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages by stating that the plaintiff is the owner of property bearing no.C­161, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase­I, New Delhi admeasuring 600 Sq. yards, comprising of Basement, Ground Floor, Mezzanine Floor and First Floor (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') and the Basement and Ground Floor, except an office cabin and Mezzanine Floor was let out to defendant vide Lease Deed dated 01.04.2000, whereas the entire First Floor and office cabin on the Ground Floor was retained by plaintiff for his personal use. It is further stated that in September, 2006 the plaintiff suffered from visual impairment and was thus incapacitated in using the retained portion, though he had been using the same till September, 2006, but when on 19.02.2010, he went to suit property for collection of unpaid rent, he was shocked to find that the defendant had trespassed into the retained portion.

CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

6. Though the defendant, in the Written Statement, admitted that the tenancy was created vide Lease Deed dated 01.04.2000, but took the defence that the plaintiff had entered into an oral agreement to sell the suit property to the defendant and the latter has already made substantial payment of consideration amount to the former.

7. The plea of Sec.185 DLRA has been taken for the first time by the defendant in the form of present application U/O.7 R.11 CPC. The defendant has vehemently argued that the jurisdiction of this Court is barred U/Sec.185 DLRA. In order to substantiate his contention he has placed reliance upon the following case­laws:­

(i) Gaon Sabha Vs. Nathi, 2004 (12) SCC 555

(ii) Ram Karan & Ors. Vs. Jagdeep Rai & Sons, 1999 (49) DRJ 602

(iii) Rev Singh Vs. Rishi Pal, 2011 (182) DLT 52

(iv) Usha Gupta Vs. Subash Chand Tyagi, 2012 (127) DRJ 27

(v) Jagmal Vs. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal, 2015(1) AD (Delhi) 222 CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

8. Though there is no dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the above­said authorities, but every case has its own facts and circumstances and the ratio of law laid down in a particular authority is to be applied according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. Even the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Smt. Sulochana Devi Vs. DDA, 2014(2) PLR (Delhi) 7 has held, "The Apex Court had laid down in catena of judgments that while applying the ration laid down in a case, the facts of the reiterated case in which such a proposition of law has been laid down, must also be correlated and seen in the light of the fact of the cases in which it is sought to be applied. The propositions of law which are laid down in different case cannot be treated like theorems or principles of mathematics and made applicable to the facts of the case in hand in an implied manner."

9. The facts as well as the point of consideration of this case are different from the facts and point of consideration of the authorities cited by the defendant and therefore the said authorities are not going to render any help to the defendant. In the case of Gaon Sabha Vs. Nathi (supra), the point of vesting of Gair Mumkin Pahar in Gaon Sabha was involved whereas no CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

such point is under consideration in the present case. In Ram Karan & Ors. Vs. Jagdeep Rai & Sons (supra), the plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land, but there title to the said land was under cloud and proceedings under Sec.81 of the DLRA were already pending before the Court of Revenue Assistant. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that the said suit was basically and necessarily a suit seeking for declaration that the plaintiffs be declared as Bhumidar and also for declaration of their possession in respect of the suit land and the same was not maintainable due to the bar of Sec.185 of DLRA. Same was the finding of the Hon'ble Court in Rev Singh Vs. Rishi Pal (supra). But in the present case, neither the title of the plaintiff is under any cloud nor is he seeking any declaration as Bhumidar and thus the ratio of the abovesaid cases is not applicable to the present case. In Usha Gupta Vs. Subash Chand Tyagi (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in case of suit for possession of agricultural land against the trespasser by the Bhumidar, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted as the jurisdiction in such case lies with the Revenue Assistant. But CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

again this authority is not going to render any help to the defendant as the suit property in present case is not agricultural land rather it is lying in industrial area and further the present suit has not been filed by the plaintiff as any Bhumidar of agricultural land. In Jagmal Vs. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal (supra), it was the admitted fact by the plaintiff that the suit land was agricultural land and the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act were applicable, however it was contended from the side of plaintiff that the suit for injunction was maintainable before the Civil Court. But the said contention was rejected by the Hon'ble Court and while relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Anil Kumar Vs. B.R.B. Constructions Pvt. Ltd., CS (OS) No.1332 of 2007 D/d 14.05.2008, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that even the suit for injunction was not maintainable before the Civil Court in view of Sec.83 of DLRA. It is worth mentioning here that in all the judgments cited by the defendant, the suit land was agricultural land but in the present case, it is no so. The suit property in the present case is lying in the industrial area. It is not falling in any khasra number, rather it has been given a municipal number, meaning thereby that it is not an agricultural land. Thus the judgments filed by the defendant are not applicable in the CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

present case. Though the defendant has not produced any substantial material on record to show that the DLRA is applicable on the suit property, but even if it is presumed for a moment that the DLRA was applicable on the area where suit property is situated, yet in view of the recent judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the DLRA would not be applicable as the land is no more used for agricultural purposes. Admittedly, it is a constructed building where the defendant is running its business and thus it is not an agricultural land at all.

10. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nilima Gupta Vs. Yogesh Saroha, 156 (2009) DLT 129 , that as per the definition of land given in Sec.3(13) of the DLRA, it is clear that the land within the Delhi Land Reforms Act primarily is the land which is occupied for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture and poultry farming meaning thereby that the primary use of the land as per the definition has to be agricultural, etc. but once the agricultural land loses its basic character of agricultural land and then the disputes of plot­ holders are not those, which can be decided by the Revenue Authorities and these disputes have to be decided by the Civil Courts.

CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

11. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in NB Singh (HUF) Vs. M/s.

Perfexa Solutions , 2009(159) DLT 729 , while relying upon its earlier judgments titled as Ram Lubbaya Kapoor Vs. J.R. Chawla & Ors., 1986 RLR 432 and Narain Singh & Anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner in WP(C) No.670 of 1995 decided on July 14, 2008 has held, "10. It is manifest from the above judgments of this Court that a property ceases to be an agricultural property if it is not used for agricultural purposes. In the present case, as noticed above, defendant in its written statement has admitted that the suit property is a farm­house which consists of a dwelling unit on its ground floor and first floor, a swimming pool and servant quarter etc. The defendant has further admitted that the suit property was leased out to it for the residence of its Managing Director Shri T.S. Sandhu. It is also admitted that the rental of the suit property at the time it was leased out to defendant was Rs. 1,60,000/­ per month and it is being continuously used by its Managing Director Shri T.S. Sandhu for his residence.

11. The aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the plaintiff got the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for raising construction on the so­ called agricultural land, obtained completion certificate CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is paying house­tax as assessed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi lead me to no other conclusion except to the conclusion that the suit property, by no stretch of imagination, can be called an agricultural land. The defendant­company who had taken premises on lease for the residence of its Managing Director on a hefty rent of Rs.1,60,000/­ per month is estopped from contending that the suit property is an agricultural land covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954."

(Emphasis is mine)

12. The similar findings were given by the Hon'ble High Court of , Delhi in Anand J. Datwani Vs. Geeti Bhagat Datwani 2013 (4) AD (Delhi) 703 wherein it has been held, "An agricultural land must be used for the agricultural purposes only if the Land Reforms Laws are to be made applicable and if it is not so used, it will cease to be an agricultural land. In the instant case, admittedly, the land in question has not been used for any purposes contemplated therein under the Land Reforms Act, instead, the land has been built upon. Admittedly, two residential units have been constructed on the land in question out of which one is used by the parties as their residence and the other one was rented out and so far, CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

the land has not been, in fact had never been used for the agricultural purposes. It is not the case of the defendants that they are carrying out any agricultural activity or any other allied permissible activity on the land in question. Therefore, as per the aforesaid reasoning and the view taken consistently by this court in number of judgments, the land in my considered view, has ceased to be an agricultural land and will no longer be governed by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Thus, the jurisdiction of civil court cannot be said to be barred by virtue of the provisions of section 185 of the Act."

13. In the present case also, admittedly the suit property is a constructed building, a part of which was let out to the defendant vide Lease Deed dated 01.04.2000. Though the suit property is lying in industrial area meaning thereby that it is not an agricultural land, but even if the contention of defendant is presumed to be correct for a moment, even then as per the abovesaid case­laws, the same has ceased to be an agricultural land and the defendant, is estopped from contending that the same is agricultural land covered by the DLRA. Hence, in view of the abovesaid discussion, it is held that the land in question is not agricultural land and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.

Court is not barred under Sec.185 DLRA. Accordingly, the application of the defendant, filed U/O.7 R.11 CPC, is dismissed. (Announced in open Court on 01.07.2016) (Navita Kumari Bagha) ADJ­01, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.