Delhi District Court
Mukesh Kumar vs Smt. Dulari Devi on 4 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE 01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW
DELHI
RCA No. 26/13
Unique ID no. 02403C0076882013
Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Bankey Bihari Gupta
R/o RZD29A, Dabri Extension (East)
New Delhi - 110 046. ......... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Dulari Devi
W/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Chaudhary
R/o RZ15E, Gandhi Market,
Pankha Road
also known as Najafgarh Road,
Najafgarh earlier known as
Sagarpur West, New Delhi. ........ Respondent
Appeal presented On : 02.07.2013
Arguments Concluded On : 31.03.2015
Judgment Pronounced On : 04.04.2015
Appearance : Sh. Ratnesh Bansal and Ms Ashu, Ld. counsels for appellant.
Sh. Rohit Kumar Modi and Sh. A.K. Vashisht, Ld. counsels for
respondent.
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for MCD.
J U D G M E N T
1. This is an appeal preferred by appellant/defendant against judgment and decree dt. 28.05.2013 passed by the Court of Ld. SCJ/RC (SouthWest), Dwarka, RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 1 of 16 New Delhi in CS No. / titled as "Dulari Devi Vs Mukesh Kumar" in favour of respondent/ plaintiff whereby, the suit of respondent/ plaintiff was decreed and a decree of possession was passed with a direction to the appellant/ defendant to handover the vacant possession of suit premises bearing no. 1 on ground floor in property no. RZ15 E, Gandhi Market, West Sagarpur, New Delhi (herein referred as suit premises) as shown in red colour in the site plant Ex. PW1/2. The respondent/plaintiff was also awarded pendentelite and future damages/mesne profit in respect of suit premises @1500 per month from 01.03.2010 till the date of handing over of the vacant possession of suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the plaint by respondent/ plaintiff therein are that the the respondent/ plaintiff has let out the suit premises to the appellant/defendant at monthly rent of Rs. 450/ excluding water and electricity charges. The tenancy was a monthly tenancy as per English Calender month by first of Every English calender month and ends on last day of the month. The rent was later on increased to Rs. 2800/ p.m. by mutual agreement and appellant/defendant has paid the rent till February 2006 @ Rs. 2800/ per month and thereafter he failed to pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff despite repeated request and demands. By virtue of notice dated 03.02.2010, the tenancy of appellant/defendant was terminated and appellant/defendant was asked to make the payment of Rs. 1,31,600/ being the rent from 01.03.2006 to 31.01.2010. The said legal notice was sent by Registered AD as well as by UPC and it was duly served upon the appellant/defendant but despite service of legal notice the appellant/defendant failed to comply with the notice. It is averred that the respondent/ plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of appellant/ RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 2 of 16 defendant and he is unauthorized occupant in the suit premises. The present rate of use and occupation charges of such property is Rs. 5,000/ p.m. which the appellant/defendant is liable to pay to the respondent/plaintiff w.e.f. 01.03.2010 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff being owner of the suit property is entitled to the possession thereof and a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,34,400/ for the rent due up to 28.02.2010 and further a sum of Rs. 5,000/ from 01.03.2010 till the handing over the vacant possession of the suit property.
3. The appellant/defendant contested the case of respondent/ plaintiff and filed written statement interalia pleading the suit filed by respondent/defendant is not maintainable as appellant/defendant already deposited the rent u/s 27 of DRC upto the period of 2009. Thereafter, rent for the months of September 2009 to March 2010 @ Rs. 660/ per month was sent through money order but the same has not been accepted. The suit is barred u/s 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called as DRC Act) and no notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred as T.P. Act) has ever been received by appellant/defendant. Since, the appellant/defendant being lawful tenant, there is no question of paying damages to the respondent/ plaintiff. It is further stated that the respondent/plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction on 29.09.2008 which was disposed of by Ld. Civil Judge on the statement of respondent/plaintiff that she will not dispossess the appellant/defendant without due process of law. The respondent/plaintiff, thereafter, filed an eviction petition u/s 14D r/w 25B of DRC Act and same was withdrawn on 06.01.2010. The suit of respondent/ plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. RCA no. 26/13
Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 3 of 16 The respondent/ plaintiff has alleged that the address of suit premises is RZ15 E, Gandhi Market, Sagarpur, Delhi. However, the sale deed filed by respondent/plaintiff on record in support of her alleged ownership mention the address of property, which is situated in Vashisht Park. Sagarpur West and Vashisht Park are of two different localities and as such the respondent/ plaintiff has failed to prove ownership qua the suit premises. The property falls in an urbanized area as declared u/s.507 of DMC Act and further provision of Delhi Rent Control Act have been made applicable to this area, by way of separate notification, as per provision contained in Section 1(2) of DRC Act. On merits, the contents of plaint were denied.
4. Replication to written statement was filed reiterating and reaffirming averments made in the plaint and denying the allegations in the written statement.
5. On the pleading of parties, following issues were framed on 14.11.2011 by Ld. Trial Court as under:
Issues:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession of suit property as prayed for in the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs. 1,34,400/ against the defendant for arrears of rent up 28.02.2010? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 5,000/ per month from 01.03.2010 till the date of handing over the vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiff? OPP.
4. Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred u/s 50 of DRC Act? OPP
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent is barred by law of limitation? OPD
6. Relief.RCA no. 26/13
Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 4 of 16
6. After appreciating evidence adduced by respective parties, documents and material available on record the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff was decreed by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 28.05.2013. Aggrieved by this, the appellant/respondent preferred present appeal alongwith application u/o 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC and another application u/o 6 rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC.
Pursuant to notice issued respondent/plaintiff appeared and filed reply.
7. The appellant/ defendant challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the suit property is situated at Pankha Road known as Najafgarh Road which is well notified in Delhi Rent Control Act and the map of District South West Delhi obtained from website shows the clear position. The Najafgarh has already been notified vide notification no. GSR 486 dated 12.04.1962 and vide further notification no. SO1236 New Delhi, dt. 27th March 1979 again Central Government notified the entire revenue of the Najafgarh which has not so far been organized and as per the AnnexureC of the said notification, the boundary has been determined under the schedule which is as under.: West: From the crossing the pucca roads in village Hartal (Pankha) alongwith the western boundaries of village poshangipur, Naglijaleb, Tihar, chaukhandi, Tatarpur, Basai Darapur upto the point it joins Najafgarh Drain.
North: Along the Najafgarh drain upto the point it joins the eastern boundary of Delhi Municipal Committee.
East : Thence alongwith Western boundaries of Delhi Municipal committee and New Delhi Municipal Committee and north Western boundary of the Delhi Cantonment upto the point from which the pucca road leads to Najafgarh Road including entire boundaries of village Khampur, Shadipur, Titarpur and Nangal Raya.
RCA no. 26/13
Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 5 of 16 South: Thence along the eastern boundary of pucca and from the Cantonment Railway Station upto the point it joins the Najafgarh Road Known as Punkha Road."
As per the said notification it reveals that Najafgarh road is also called the Pankha Road. As per the record maintained by the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi. It is also contended that if a revenue estate of village Najafgarh is notified under Delhi Rent Control, all the property fallen or situated within the said revenue estate are notified under DRC Act and no further notification is necessary and same view was of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Puran Singh's case, therefore, the property is fully covered under Delhi Rent Control Act and suit of the appellant / plaintiff is not maintainable.
8. Ld. Counsel for appellant/ defendant further argued that the Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate the contention of appellant/ defendant that the suit property in fact, situated at Vashisht Park, Pankha Road also known as Najafgarh and even the site plan Ex. PW1/2 relied by respondent/plaintiff donot tally with the directions given in the alleged sale deed. It is further argued that at the trial stage, the appellant/ defendant moved an application before Ld. Trial Court under section 151 of CPC to lead the evidence on the ground that suit property is governed under the provision of DRC Act and the appellant /defendant be given an opportunity to establish this fact. Another application u/o 6 rule 17 of CPC was also moved seeking amendment of written statement. The Ld. Trial Court rejected aforesaid applications on 24.05.2013 and also rejected the contention of appellant/ defendant whereby extension of four weeks time was requested. The Ld. Trial Court further dismissed the application moved by appellant/ defendant u/s. 114 of CPC r/w Order 47 of CPC RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 6 of 16 seeking the review of order dated 24.05.2013 and impugned judgment passed on 28.05.2013. It is alleged in the appeal that the Ld. Trial Court has overlook the facts which has caused prejudice to the rights of appellant/ defendant.
9. It is further argued by appellant/ defendant that no notice u/s. 106 of TP Act was received by appellant/ defendant. Alleged notice of termination dated 03.02.2010 Ex. PW1/3 is not in accordance with law. It is further argued that the application for additional evidence and application under order 6 Rule 17 can be allowed at any stage and even at appellate stage for adjudication of controversy on merits.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent/ plaintiff argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial court has right dismissed the applications moved by appellant/ defendant as the application u/s. 151 of CPC for additional evidence and application u/o 6 rule 17 of CPC were moved by appellant/ defendant when the matter was fixed for judgment. It is further argued that in the year 1963, it was the village Najafgarh which was urbanized and not the entire zone as alleged by appellant/ defendant and remaining village such as Sagarpur and Dabri were urbanized in the 1994 and since then there is not notification of Central Government for extending the scope of DRC Act on those areas. In the absence of any notification of Central Government, it cannot be said that the suit property falls under the purview of DRC Act and placed reliance upon observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mitter Sen Jain vs. Shakuntala Devi, 85 (2000 DLT) 658 SC. The suit property falls in West Sagarpur area. West Sagarpur is part of village of Dabri which is part of Tehsil Najafgarh as RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 7 of 16 of today and earlier it was part of Mehrauli Tehsil and vide notification dated 24.10.1994, the area of West Sagarpur and village Dabri was urbanized but thereafter no notification came from Central Government to cover the area under DRC Act. The suit premises is not a part of Najafgarh area. It is further argued that the ample number of opportunities were given to appellant/ defendant by Ld. Trial Court to complete its evidence. The appellant/ defendant closed evidence on 06.04.2013 and thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments and thereafter for judgment. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of Ld. Trial Court as the same has been passed after considering the pleadings, documents and evidence of parties.
11. I have heard arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for parties have gone through Trial Court Record.
12. Before deciding appeal on merits, it would be imperative to record findings on two applications moved by appellant/ defendant one under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and second under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC at appellate stage.
13. I have perused the Ld. Trial Court Record and find that a similar prayer was also made before Ld. Trial Court by moving two separate applications that are u/s 151 of CPC and u/o 6 rule 17 of CPC which were rejected on 24.05.2013 considering the fact that an issue in respect of applicability of DRC Act was framed in the present case and these applications have been moved after the appellant/ defendant consciously decided to close his evidence on 06.04.2013 and when the case was listed for judgment. In nutshell through these applications the appellant/ defendant intents to amended pleadings/ written statements for incorporating RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 8 of 16 defence that exact address of suit property is RZ15E, Gandhi Market, Vishishta Park, Pankha Road also known as Najaftarh Road, New Delhi which is duly notified under the provision of DRC Act and not in West Sagarpur. The appellant/ defendant intents to lead evidence in this regard. The ld. Trial Court after appreciating the legal gamut of proviso to order 6 rule 17 rightfully concluded that all these facts being in the knowledge of appellant/ defendant and nothing prevented him to bring on record those facts at an early stage. After the commencement of trial, no such permission can be granted when the matter is at the stage of judgment.
14. A perusal of Trial Court Record further reveals another important factual matrix which is relevant on this fact. Between these two parties, there was another litigation filed by respondent/ plaintiff wherein an eviction petition was filed in Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended upto date which was resisted by appellant/ defendant on the ground that provisions of DRC Act are not applicable to the area in dispute. The suit was eventually withdrawn by respondent/ plaintiff which was allowed by the court considering that admittedly the tenanted premises is situated in West Sagarpur to which the provisions of DRC Act are not applicable and liberty was granted to respondent/ plaintiff to file a suit for possession against appellant/ defendant. The facts above clearly demonstrates that the appellant/ defendant is raising contradictory arguments about applicability of DRC Act with a view to forestall the legal proceedings mounted by respondent/ plaintiff. In the earlier proceedings the arguments taken was that suit property is outside the jurisdiction of DRC Act being part of West Sagarpur and now in the present proceedings, at much belated stage, efforts are being made by appellant/ defendant to bring it under DRC RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 9 of 16 Act raising an arguments about location of suit premises. The proviso to order 6 rule 17 of CPC annexed an embargo/bar against granting leave to amend after commencement trial but subject to the condition that unless the court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party cannot have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the present case, the position is that suit was filed on 17.03.2010, written statement was filed on 15.05.2010 and the issues were framed on 14.11.2013. However, on 07.12.2011, the respondent/ plaintiff filed an affidavit of Examination in chief and it is after that the trial has commenced that appellant/ defendant moved application u/o 6 rule 17 of CPC on 24.05.2013 seeking leave to amend the written statement. A careful perusal of pleadings, annexures and various orders passed by Ld. Trial Court reveals that the grounds which are sought to be raised by way of amendment by appellant/ defendant were well within their knowledge and manifests the absence of due diligence on the part of appellant/ defendant disentitling him to relief. Under these circumstances when the only intention of the appellant/ defendant is to take contradictory stands, the case of appellant/ defendant is covered by proviso to rule 17 of order 6 and therefore, the relief deserves to be denied. As the grant of present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the respondent/ plaintiff. On the contrary it is a case where the appellant/ defendant with certainty understands the location of suit property but is trying to play around with the rules to delay the proceedings. The Ld. Trial Court in para no.17 of impugned judgment has categorically observed that the appellant/ defendant has himself relied upon document MCD license Ex.DW1/2 wherein the address of suit property is shown as West Sagarpur and receipts of property tax Ex.DW2/6 also shows that the suit RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 10 of 16 property situates at West Sagarpur. Under these circumstances, the application u/o 6 rule 17 of CPC is rejected being devoid of merits.
15. Once the application for amendment of pleadings is rejected, there is no question of allowing the application of leading additional evidence as it is not a case where the Ld. Trial Court has improperly refused to admit evidence. It is not the case of the appellant/ defendant that the additional evidence sought to be produced at the appellate stage was not within their knowledge or that the same could not be produced after exercise of due diligence. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not authorize any lacunas or gaps in the evidence by a party to be filled up when such party was unsuccessful in the Ld. Trial Court. In the present case, the evidence is already on record which is sufficient for adjudication of controversy involved in the appeal. Thus even this application filed at appellate stage is rejected.
16. On the merits of appeal, I have perused the entire case record and grounds of appeal raised in present appeal. The most important ground pertains to applicability of DRC Act on the suit property being situated in an area which is governed by the provisions of DRC Act. The contesting parties are disputing the applicability of DRC Act. The Ld Trial Court has dealt with this issue as "issue 4" and after a detailed discussion and relying upon the judgment titled Mitter Sen jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi 85 (2000) DLT 658 observed that the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable. The Ld Trial Court also considered documentary evidence in the form of house tax notices, electricity bills etc., demonstrating that suit property falls under West Sagarpur. The Ld. Trial Court minutely examined the notifications issued in respect to the applicability of the Act wherein West Sagarpur RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 11 of 16 area has not been notified. At the appellate stage, counsel for respondent / plaintiff argued that the issue regarding applicability of DRC Act over the property situated in West Sagarpur has been dealt by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi recently in the case titled Sohan Pal Vs. Umashankar & Anr RSA 223/13 decided on 07.05.2014. In this case, the suit property was situated at Gandhi Market which is same area where the suit property of present respondent / plaintiff is situated and referred to para (1) which is read as under :
1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant/tenant impugning the judgment of the courts below; of the trial court dated 6.12.2012 and the first appellate court dated 8.8.2013; by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord was decreed for possession and mesne profits with respect to the property No. RZE 28A& 28B, Gandhi Market, Shankar Shopping Centre, West Sagar Pur, New Delhi. Damages were also granted by the decree at Rs.4,500/ per month from 1.2.2009 till the date of recovery of possession.
17. The aforesaid judgment has the discussed the law point succinctly in para 7 to 9 which is reproduced as under:
7. The substantial question of law needs to be answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant because when we see the notification dated 24.10.1994 issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the same shows that in the Najafgarh area/zone as many as 20 villages were urbanized and one such village was village Dabri. Therefore, Najafgarh is a large zone, and which contains the village Dabri which was urbanized by the notification dated 24.10.1994. Once that is so, the notification dated 23.5.1963 relied upon by the appellant can only be interpreted by me that this notification dated 23.5.1963 urbanized the zone/revenue estate of Najafgarh which contained many villages but not the village Dabri. Obviously MCD will not act in a foolish manner to urbanize an already urbanized area i.e MCD would not have urbanized the village RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 12 of 16 Dabri by the notification dated 24.10.1994 if village Dabri was only in the RSA 223/2013 Page 4 of 7 revenue estate of Najafgarh which was urbanized by the notification dated 23.5.1963.
8. In any case, the issue is completely settled in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mitter Sen Jain v. Shakuntala Devi (2000) 9 SCC 720 and which holds that the area of Sagarpur is an area to which Delhi Rent Control Act is not extended. Since the judgment of the Supreme Court is a small judgment of 5 paragraphs, the same is reproduced hereunder: "1. The appellant herein is a tenant of the premises situated at Sagarpur in Delhi, whereas the respondent is the landlord. The landlord let out the premises to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/ per month. Subsequently, the landlord terminated the tenancy by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The landlord thereafter brought a suit for ejectment of the tenant as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit. Before the Trial Court the tenant filed a written statement wherein one of the pleas taken was that the premises which was let out to him was covered by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and as such the suit is not maintainable. The Trial Court held that the premises was not covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Consequently, the suit was decreed. First Appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge, which was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant filed a Second Appeal before the High Court and the same was also dismissed. It is in this way the appellant is before us in appeal.
2. The only argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that since the premises of which the appellant is a tenant is covered by Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore, the suit filed by the landlord in Civil Court was not maintainable and decree passed therein is void ab initio. In order to appreciate the argument, it is worthwhile to extract the RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 13 of 16 relevant provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as well as Delhi Rent Control Act, which are as follows RSA 223/2013 Page 5 of 7 Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act:
"507 (a) the Corporation with the previous approval of the Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any portion of the rural areas shall cease to be included therein and upon the issue of such notification that portion shall be included in and form part of the urban areas;"
Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
"1. (2) It extends to the areas included within the limits of the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board and to such urban areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as are specified in the First Schedule:
Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend this Act or any provision thereof, to any other urban area included within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or exclude any area from the operation of this Act or any provision thereof.
3. Subsequently, by a notification dated 24.10.1994 issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the rural area falling under Sagarpur when the property in dispute is situate was included within the urban area of Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is on the strength of this notification, learned Counsel urged that once the area has been included as urban area within the Delhi Municipal Corporation ipso facto, the Delhi Rent Control Act shall be applicable the argument is totally misconceived. Even if any new area is included within the urban area of Municipal RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 14 of 16 Corporation of Delhi, a further notification is required to be issued under proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Unless the area is so specified in the Schedule by a notification, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be made applicable to that area. It is admitted that no notification has yet been issued under the proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act specifying Sagarpur area within the Schedule of the Act. In absence of such a notification, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be enforced to the area, namely, Sagarpur.
4. No other point was pressed. The appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
5. However, the appellant shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 31st December, 2000 provided he files usual undertaking within four weeks. He shall deposit the arrears of rent within one month and continue to pay the rent/damages for the period he continues in possession of the premises, failing which the interim order shall stand vacated without further order of the Court."
(emphasis added)
9. In view of the above, it is held that the civil courts have no jurisdiction because the area of village Dabri which contains the Sagarpur area, and where the suit premises are situated, are not covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act because no notification has been issued under Section 1(2) of this Act for applicability of this Act to the Sagarpur area.
18. In present case the suit property is situated in West Sagarpur and in consideration of the facts and the circumstances of case and guided by aforesaid observation made by Hon'ble High Court in case Sohan Pal (supra) I do not find RCA no. 26/13 Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 15 of 16 any infirmity in the impugned judgment and there is no merit in the appeal regarding the applicability of provision for DRC Act with regard to suit property, therefore appeal on this point is rejected.
19. Now coming to another point raised in the appeal that proper notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act has not been received, the Ld. Trial Court committed an error in not considering the same. Without referring to the facts in this issue, it would be useful to refer to judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled M/s Jeevan Diesel and Electrical Limited Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) 2011 (182) DLT 402 wherein it has been observed that service of summons in a suit filed by a landlord accompanied by the plaint can always be treated as notice u/s. 106 of Transfer of Property Act. This ground of appeal is devoid of merits and hence rejected.
21. In view of foregoing discussion, in summation, the instant appeal filed against respondent / plaintiff is dismissed. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Court
on 04.04.2015 (Vineeta Goyal)
Additional District Judge01,
NDD/PHC/New Delhi/ 04.04.2015
RCA no. 26/13
Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 16 of 16
RCA No. 26/13
Mukesh Kumar v. Smt. Dulari Devi
04.04.2015
Present : Sh. Ratnesh Bansal and Ms Ashu, Ld. counsels for appellant.
Sh. Rohit Kumar Modi and Sh. A.K. Vashisht, Ld. counsels for respondent.
Ms. Promila Kapoor, counsel for MCD.
Vide separate judgment of even date the appeal filed against respondent / plaintiff is dismissed. Appeal file be consigned to record room. Trial Court be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment. No order as to cost.
(Vineeta Goyal)
Additional District Judge01,
NDD/PHC/New Delhi/ 04.04.2015
RCA no. 26/13
Mukesh Kumar V. Dulari Devi Page no. 17 of 16