Delhi District Court
M/S Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable ... vs Shyam Divan on 3 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR: DJ-05:
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: N. DELHI
CS DJ NO. 112/2022
CNR NO. DLSE01-001426-2022
In the matter of :-
1. M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury
Charitable And Educational Trust
145/A Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003
Email ID- [email protected]
Phone No.- +91-9811108568
2. Shri Ranjit Kumar Chowdhury, Trustee
S/o Late Anil Kumar Chowdhury
R/o Chenijuthi (Hillside), Nabagraha Road,
P.O. Guwahati-781003
Email ID- [email protected]
3. Shri Arun Kumar Bora, Trustee
S/o Late Prafulla Kumar Bora
R/o Chenikuthi (Hillside), Nabagraha Road,
P.O. Guwahati-781003 Assam,
Email ID- [email protected] ......Plaintiffs
Versus
Shri Shyam Divan
9, Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi-110013
Email: [email protected]
Phone No.- 011-41851374/75/76 ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 21.02.2022
Arguments heard on : 19.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2025
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF
RENT, DAMAGES AND MESNE PROFITS
CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 1 of 25
M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25
PRABH Digitally
by PRABH
DEEP KAUR
signed
DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05
13:19:31 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits has been disposed of.
2. The Plaintiff, being a 'Private Trust' has filed a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits against the Defendant alleging that-
(i) Late Shri S.N. Chowdhury one of the Trustees of the Plaintiff Trust without the knowledge and consent of other Trustees and without any notice to them or getting any resolution of the Trust, unilaterally let out the Ground Floor of the Property 145-A, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 (hereinafter called as suit property) to the Defendant for a period of two years at a rental of Rs. 60,000/- p.m. bifurcated vide Lease Deed dated 16 th April, 2006 as rent at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month and as Hire charges at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month vide Hire agreement of the same date.
(ii) Although Shri S.N. Chowdhury could not have unilaterally created any lease in respect of any part of the property without there being a unanimous resolution of Trust, yet the remaining 3 Trustees seeing no alternative, reconciled to the situation as they did not want to precipitate any legal action or dispute with the tenant and hence treated the Defendant as month to month tenant under the said unregistered and insufficiently stamped lease deed and hire agreement dated 16th April, 2006.
(iii) After the death of Sh. S.N. Chowdhury on 17 th February, 2021, the Plaintiff vide Notice dated 08 th November, CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 2 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR 13:19:37 +0530 2021 terminated the tenancy of the defendant by giving 15 days' notice with Defendant to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the said entire premises to the Plaintiff.
(iv) The Defendant was a month to month tenant under the unregistered and insufficiently stamped lease deed dated 16.04.2006 and the said tenancy of the defendant had been legally terminated vide notice dated 08.11.2021. After the termination of the tenancy, the Defendant is in unauthorised and illegal possession of the property in suit. He is liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff Trust at the rate of current market rent of the similar premises. The market rent of the similar properties at present is rs. 3,00,000/- per month.
(v) The Defendant was paying a rent of Rs. 83,800/- p.m. The defendant has not made the payment of any rent of the premises from 1st July, 2021 till 15th December, 2021 i.e. till the date of termination of his tenancy. He has also not paid any use and occupation charges after the termination of his tenancy with effect from 16th December, 2021 till date. The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 5,02,800/- from 16th July, 2021 till 15th December, 2021 as arrears of rent. The market rent of the similar properties in Jor Bagh is about Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) per month that is at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per day. With effect from 16th December, 2021 till filing of the suit that is till 15 th February, 2022, the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs0 as damages being use and occupation charges.
3. Defence of defendant:
(i) The Defendant, at first, acquired leasehold rights in the CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 3 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
2025.07.05 KAUR 13:19:41 +0530 suit property by way of a lease Deed dated 16.04.2006, and continued as Lessee therein after renewal of the same from time to time. In 2012 fresh terms were negotiated and both the lessor- the plaintiff Trust, acting through its Trustee Sh. S.N. Chowdhury and the Lease Deed to cement the relationship of Lessor and Lessee developed over the years. Clearly, the Defendant is not in occupation of the suit premises, on the basis of lease deed dated 16.04.2006.
(ii) The defendant thus, at present, is in lawful possession of the suit property vide a duly executed and subsisting Registered Lease Deed dated 06.03.2012, registered on 09.04.2012. The aforesaid Lease Deed grants leasehold rights to the Defendant for a period of 21 years i.e. till 2033, as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein, with periodical increase in monthly rent.
(iii) Aforesaid Lease Deed dated 06.03.2012 was granted to the Defendant by the Plaintiff through its Trustee Mr. S.N. Chowdhury, and most importantly- duly authorised on this aspect by the other trustees which included the present Trustees who have instituted the instant suit on behalf of the Trustee being - Mr. A.K. Borah and Mr. Ranjit chowdhury (hereinafter referred to as the 'present Trustees'). A copy of the resolution dated 01.11.2000 is placed on record. As such, the Lease Deed having been executed in 2012, and which is within the knowledge of the Plaintiff, renders the instant suit barred by law and, therefore, merits dismissal.
(iv) The fact of defendant, being the tenant by virtue of
CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 4 of 25
M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25
PRABH Digitally signed
by PRABH DEEP
DEEP KAUR
Date: 2025.07.05
KAUR 13:19:49 +0530
lease deed executed in 2012 was informed to the Plaintiff vide reply dated 22.11.2021 despite that plaintiff filed the present suit on the basis of lease deed dated 16.04.2006, instead of lease deed dated 06.03.2012.
4. Replication The Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of defendant thereby reaffirming and reiterating the contents of plaint and denying the contents of written statement. The plaintiff denied the execution of registered lease deed dated 06.03.2012 in favour of defendant stating that any such lease deed allegedly executed by Sh. S.N. Choudhury in favour of defendant is void ab initio. As per plaintiff, the alleged document came into existence with a common intention to play a fraud on the plaintiff Trust in pursuance of collusion and conspiracy among Sh. S.N. Chowdhury and the Defendant. The fraud played on the Plaintiff trust is evident as under:
(a) Sh. S.N. Chowdhury and the Defendant were advocates in the same profession and practising in Delhi.
(b) Vide Letter dated 26.11.2010, the Defendant himself requested to extend the term of lease for 3 years with effect from 16.04.2011 i.e. till 16.04.2014. There was no occasion to enter a Lease Deed on 06.03.2012 allegedly for a period of 42 years.
(c) No person would grant lease for 42 years, when the tenant himself is requesting extension only for 3 years.
(d) The rent payable by defendant was meager, much less the market rent.
(e) No security amount or advance rental was taken under the CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 5 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally by PRABH DEEP KAUR signed DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05 13:19:53 +0530 so called long lease of 42 years.
(f) According to the Trust Deed dated 16.10.1999, it was mandated that the trustees shall manage the trust properties in the manner as might be most beneficial to the interest of the Trust.
Entering into a Lease Deed for an alleged term of 42 years was not an act in the interest or for the benefit of the Plaintiff Trust.
(g) According to the Trust Deed dated 16.10.1999 all the trustees of the Plaintiff Trust were to act unanimously and no majority decision was binding on the Trust.
(h) Sh. S.N. Chowdhury could not have unilaterally executed any document in favour of the Defendant much less a Lease Deed for an alleged term of 42 years in contravention of the terms of the Trust Deed and consequently the order of the High Court dated 01.05.2000.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 18.07.2022:-
(i)Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for? OPP
(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrear of rent as prayed for? OPP
(iii)Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages, as prayed for? OPP
(iv)Relief.
6. Plaintiff Evidence The plaintiff has examined Sh. Ranjit Kumar Chowdhury as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 6 of 25M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR 13:20:01 +0530
(a) Copy of the Trust Deed dated 16.10.1999 is marked as Mark PW-1/1.
(b) Certified copy of the application bearing no. I.A. No.1577 of 2000 in suit no. 2854 of 1998 together with its annexures are collectively marked as Ex. PW1/2 (colly).
(c) Certified copy of the Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in suit no. 2854 of 1998 is collectively marked as Ex. PW1/3 (colly)
(d) Certified copy of the application I.A. No. 3183 of 2000 in suit No. 2854 of 1998 together with its annexres is collectively marked as Ex. PW1/4 (colly).
(e) Certified copy of the Decree dated 01.05.2000 is Ex. PW1/5.
(f) Copy of lease deed dated 16.04.2006 is marked as Mard PW1/6
(g) Copy of the Hire Agreement dated 16.04.2006 is marked as Mark PW1/7.
(h) Copy of the notice dated 08.11.2021 is marked as Ex.PW1/8.
(I) Copy of the reply dated 22.11.2021 is Ex. PW1/9.
(j) Copy of the rejoinder notice dated 27.11.2021 is Ex.
PW1/10.
PW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. Accordingly, PE was closed on 11.04.2023. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for Defendant Evidence.
7. Defendant Evidence CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 7 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally by PRABH DEEP KAUR signed DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05 13:20:05 +0530 The defendant has examined himself as DW1. DW1 was cross examined and discharged. The defendant has closed his evidence vide order dated 16.01.2025. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. Sh. P.K. Agrawal with Sh. Akshay Chitkara, Sh. Rishabh Tomar and Sh. Sanjoli Gupta, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff and Sr. Adv. Sh. Anil K. Kher with Ms. Vishu Malik, Ld. Counsels for defendant have addressed final arguments. Both the parties have also filed written arguments which reiterated the arguments addressed before the Court and same are not reproduced here in verbatim for the sake of brevity but will be dealt alongwith the findings upon issues at the relevant stage. Record has been carefully perused.
9. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
Issue no. (i)Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for? OPP Issue no. (ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrear of rent as prayed for? OPP Issue no. (iii)Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages, as prayed for? OPP All these issues are taken up together since they are interlinked involving common discussion and finding on the one will have bearing on the other. The burden to prove issue nos. I to III was placed upon the plaintiff.
Admittedly, plaintiff trust is the owner of the suit property and defendant is a tenant over the suit property. Admittedly, rent is above Rs. 3,500/- per month and therefore, tenancy is not a CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 8 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR 13:20:09 +0530 protected tenancy under the Provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. The issue is whether the tenancy of the defendant is governed by the lease deed dated 16.04.2006 and thus, is monthly tenancy determinable by one month legal notice or by the registered lease deed dated 16.03.2012, registered on 09.04.2012 and thus determinable only on default of payment of rent by defendant. Admittedly, defendant was put into possession of the suit property as a tenant by Late Shri S.N. Chowdhury, during his life time when he was trustee of the plaintiff trust.
As per plaintiff, trust had ratified the act of Shri S.N. Chowdhury and accepted the defendant as a tenant by virtue of lease deed dated 16.04.2006, though originally Shri S.N. Chowdhury had let out the suit property to defendant without consent of plaintiff trust /other trustees.
10. Question of Authority of Sh. S.N. Chowdhury:
10.(a) Plaintiff has taken the plea that Shri S.N. Chowdhury had no authority to execute the alleged registered lease deed dated 06.03.2012 for a period of 21 years with option to further renew the same for another 21 year. It has been further argued that alleged registered lease deed nowhere mentioned about any authority letter in favour of Shri S.N. Chowdhury and defendant has nowhere disclosed about the existence of the resolution dated 01.11.2000 before leading DE and even the said resolution has not been properly proved by the defendant. It has been further argued that the resolution is only a photocopy and defendant admitted during cross examination that he had not seen the originals nor had seen the trustee writing or signing the same. It CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 9 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05 13:20:13 +0530 has been further argued that from the record it is clear that Shri S.N. Chowdhury was not authorised by the plaintiff trust to execute the alleged lease deed. Further, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has pointed out towards clause no. 3 of the trust deed Ex. PW-1/1 dated 16.10.1999 and has argued that as per the same trustees have to act unanimously and even as a trustee, Sh. S.N. Chowdhry cannot execute the alleged registered lease deed without unanimous decision of all trustees. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments: i. Lala Man Monhan Das Vs. Janki Prasad and Ors. decided on 17.10.1944, MANU/RR/0008/1944;
ii. Hoshiar Singh Mann and Ors. Vs. Charan Singh and Ors. IA. No. 2857 in CS (OS) 420/2008, decided on 23.04.2009; iii. Atmaram Rachhodbhai Vs. Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin & Ors. Special Civil Appln No. 762 of 1965 decided on 02.03.1972; iv. J.P. Srivastava and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6951 of 2004, decided on 26.10.2004; v. L. Janakiraman Iyer and Ors. Vs. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer and Ors., Civil Appeals Nos. 62 and 77 of 1959 decided on 26.10.1961; vi. Shanti Vijay & Co. vs. Princess Fatima Fouzia (1980) 1 SCR 459;
10.(b) On the other hand, defendant has contended that any of the trustee could sign the lease deed and this fact has been established by the defendant during cross examination of PW-1 as during cross examination, PW-1 himself has produced registered lease deed executed by plaintiff trust in favour of other tenant i.e. lease deed Ex. PW-1/X to Ex. PW-1/39 and all these lease deeds have been signed by only one of the trustees. Moreover, suit is not maintainable as lease deed dated 06.03.2012 is not subject matter of the suit.
10.(c) Arguments heard. Record perused.
10.(d) The clause no. III of Trust deed dated 16.10.1999 Ex.
PW-1/1 provides as under:
CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 10 of 25M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
2025.07.05 KAUR 13:20:20 +0530
2. Clause III of the Trust Deed Ex.PW-1/1, specifically provides as under:
"That the Trustees shall by themselves or through their agent or agents employed by them manage and deal with the Trust properties in such a manner as might be most beneficial to the interests of the Trust and shall realize the rent, dividends, interests and other income accruing from the Trust Property.
The Trustees must act unanimously and no majority decision shall be binding."
10.(e) Thus, as per the Trust Deed of plaintiff trust, the trustees will deal with the trust property in a manner which is most beneficial to the trust and trustees must act unanimously.
10.(f) In the present matter, admittedly, Sh. S.N. Chowdhury had executed the registered lease deed dated 06.03.2012 and the lease deed has not been signed by other trustees.
10.(g) Admittedly, all the lease deeds produced by PW-1 during cross examination, with respect to other properties of plaintiff trust let out to third parties, (i.e. Ex. PW-1/X24 to Ex. PW-1/X39), have been signed by one of the trustees only. However, all these lease deeds duly mentioned about the resolution in favour of the one trustee who had signed the lease deed on behalf of plaintiff trust. For example the lease deed Ex. PW-1/X24 mentions that trustee Prf. Retd. Ranjeet Kumar Chowdhury is authorized vide resolution of the trust dated 18.02.2021, lease deed Ex. PW-1/X25 mentions about the resolution of trustees dated 27.08.2012. However, the lease deed in question i.e. Ex. PW-1/D1 nowhere mentions about the resolution and only states that:
JUGAL KISHORE CHOWDHURY CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, having its registered address at 2 Floor, 145/A, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003. represented by its Trustee, Shri S. N. CHOWDHURY, resident of B-350, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 and duly authorized in terms of comprómise decree dated May 1, 2000 of the Delht High Court in Suit No. 2854 ot 1998 (hereinafter called the "LESSOR", CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 11 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally by PRABH DEEP KAUR signed DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05 13:20:24 +0530 which expression shall, unless repugnant to the subject or context thereof, include his heirs. executors, successors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns) of the ONE PART;
Thus, the lease deed (Ex. PW-1/D1) nowhere mentions about any resolution in favour of trustee Sh. S.N. Chowdhury.
11.(a) Further, it has been argued on behalf of defendant that during cross examination PW-1 admitted that all the trustees authorized, reconciled and accepted and acquiesced the action of late Sh. S.N. Chowdhury in granting the suit property to defendant from April 2006 and none of the trustees raised any objection by way of any written communication objecting to letting off suit premises to defendant since April 2006 till 08.11.2021. Further, PW-1 admitted that defendant had paid the rent in terms of lease deed dated 06.03.2012 and no record of resolution is being maintained by the trust and all the lease deeds Ex. PW-1/24 to Ex. PW-1/X39 have been signed by one trustee only and thus, defendant has proved and established that any of the trustee could sign the lease deed as all other leases have also been signed by one of the trustee.
11.(b) As far as this plea is concerned Court is in agreement with the plaintiff that the defendant has taken different stands during pleadings and during evidence:
11.(c) In the Written statement the defendant has alleged:
"Sh. S. N. Chowdhury acquired the authority to lease out the subject property by way of a Compromise Deed dated 01.05.2000, which was arrived at pursuant to settlement of disputes amongst the Trustees, which included the present Trustees who have instituted the suit on behalf of the Plaintiff Trust. "
11.(d) In the evidence, stated in the affidavit by way of evidence that:
CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 12 of 25M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR 13:20:28 +0530 "The Lease Deed was executed in the name of the Deponent and the same was duly registered with the Office of Suh-Registrar by Mr. S.N. Chowdhury, one of the Trustees of the Plaintiff and it was represented to the Deponent that any one of the Trustees is empowered to sign and execute the Lease Deed on behalf of the Trust. A copy of the Resolution dated 0 1.11.2000 was given by Mr.S.N Chowdhury which is Exhibit DW-1/1."
11.(e) Thus, during DE, defendant has taken all the new stand that Late Sh. S.N. Chowdhury had represented to him that one of the trustees is authorized to enter into lease deed on behalf of Trust. The defendant, being a legally educated person, cannot just change the stand during evidence without any reasonable explanation.
12.(a) Further, defendant has relied upon the copy of the resolution dated 01.11.2000 as mentioned by him in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. However, the defendant has not filed the copy of said resolution alongwith the written statement nor has mentioned the same in the list of documents and for the first time, the said resolution has been mentioned in the evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and no permission has been taken from the Court as required by Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC.
12.(b) Defendant was extensively cross examined on the aspect of the above said resolution and the relevant portion is follows:
"Q. Can you produce the original of the resolution dated 01.11.2000 Ex. DW-1/1?
Ans. No. I do not have the original.
Q. Did you see the original resolution?
Ans. At this point I cannot say whether I saw the original. However, Mr. S.N. Chowdhury was a distinguished Sr. Advocate and I had no reason to doubt the copies of the documents he shared. Q. In what mode, this document Ex. DW-1/1 was shared with you? Ans. It was handed over personally. I have no recollection of exchanging CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 13 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally by PRABH DEEP KAUR signed DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05 13:20:32 +0530 any emails with Mr. S.N. Chowdhury.
Q. Have you ever seen the trustees of the plaintiff trust writing or signing? Ans. No. Q. Did you ask Mr. S.N. Chowdhury to certify the copy of the resolution as true copy?
Ans. No. As I have mentioned there was a great deal of mutual trust and respect between me and Mr. S.N. Chowdhury. Q. Did you confirm about this document with any of the trustees? Ans. No Q. Did you make a mention of this document in the lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1 or in the document Ex. PW-1/6 and Ex. PW-1/7? Ans. The documents speak for themselves.
Q. Why did you not make a mention of this resolution Ex. DW-1/1 in your written statement filed by you before this Court. Particularly when in para no. 10 of the plaint it was stated that property in question was let out to you without the knowledge and consent of the trustees? Ans. The written statement was drafted and filed to resist a false suit. The plaintiff trust was fully aware of the lease deeds of 2006, extensions and the registered lease deed of 2012. My stand is and has always been that the documents were executed with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff trust.
Q. Why did you not file this document alongwith your list of documents and why this document was not mentioned in your list of reliance? Ans. There is no particular reason. It may have been left out inadvertently. Q. Does this document Ex. DW-1/1 find mention in any documents or correspondence, emails, whatsapp messages exchanged by you with any person?
Ans. I have no such specific recollection. However, I would have exchanged his document with my advocates in the present case. Q. Did you receive notice Ex. PW-1/8?
Ans. Yes.
Q. Now please see para no. I of this notice where it is stated that the property in suit was let out to you without knowledge and consent of all other trustees.
Why did you not in your reply to the notice mention about the resolution Ex. DW-1/1?
Ans. We did send an appropriate reply to the notice. Q. Is it correct that on 01.11.2000 there was no negotiation whatsoever by you for taking the property in lease with any of the trustees? Ans. Yes. My negotiations took place in 2006. Q. I put it to you that the document Ex. DW-1/1 is forged and fabricated in order to create a false evidence in your favour? Ans. It is wrong to suggest. "
12.(c) Thus, the only reason given by the defendant for not filing the copy of resolution dated 01.11.2000 earlier is "it may CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 14 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan DatedDigitally 03.07.25signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
2025.07.05 KAUR 13:20:38 +0530 have been left out inadvertently". As has been already pointed out that defendant being legally educated person and a practicing senior advocate is not justifiable in taking the shelter of inadvertent mistake and clearly he has miserably failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why the copy of said resolution was not filed earlier.
13. Further, it is also important to note down that defendant had produced only the copy of resolution dated 01.11.2000 during DE and the said resolution was not even put to PW-1 during his cross examination nor PW-1 was asked whether the said resolution contains his signature or not. Therefore, the authenticity of copy of resolution dated 01.11.2000 is under serious clouds and defendant has failed to clear the shadow put over the said resolution.
14.(a) Further, as per the receipt dated March 2012 Ex.
DW-1/X6, defendant had paid Rs. 25 lacs to Sh. S.N. Chowdhury. As per plaintiff, no such amount was ever deposited in the account of plaintiff Trust nor amount has been mentioned lease deed dated 06.03.2012 and therefore, the receipt Ex. DW-1/X6 cannot be said to be a genuine document.
14.(b) Admittedly, the receipt Ex. DW-1/X6 has not been signed by the defendant and it only states that :
"To secure the lessor the lesee hereby deposits an amount of Rupees 25 lacs as a security deposit to be retained by the lessor.
The security deposit will not bear any interest and can be freely used by the lessor."
14.(c) Thus, the receipt nowhere mentions the mode of payment of the amount of Rs. 25 lacs i.e. whether the amount CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 15 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR 13:20:46 +0530 was paid in cash or was deposited in the account of Trust or in the account of Sh. S.N. Chowdhury.
14.(d) Further, defendant was cross examined with respect to the averment of payment of Rs. 25 lacs and the relevant portion is as follows:
"Q. Did you make any payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to Mr. S.N. Chowdhury? Ans. To the best of my recollection such a deposit was made in or around 2012.
Q. Whether this payment was made in cash or through cheque Ans. At this point, I do not recall how the payment was made. Q. Please see the document filed by you purporting to be a receipt dated March 2012, was it signed by you and by Sh. S.N. Chowdhury? Ans. The document has been signed by Mr. S.N. Chowdhury as lessor. The document does not bear my signature. It has the signature of Mr. Goradia as lessee. This document is now exhibited as Ex. DW-1/X6. Q. Is Mr. Goradia the same person who had executed the lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1?
Ans. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Goradia make the payment on his behalf or on your behalf? Ans. The deposit made was on behalf of the lessee. Q. Have you shown this amount of Rs. 25 lacs in your accounts? Ans. I have no recollection at this distance of time. Q. For what purpose did you make the payment of Rs. 25 lacs to Sh. S.N. Chowdhury?
Ans. The purpose is as reflected in the document Ex. DW- 1/X6. Q. Does this amount find mention in the lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1? Ans. The lease deed speaks for itself in respect of its clauses and is registered.
Q. I put it to you that this amount of Rs. 25 lacs is not mentioned anywhere in the lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1. What do you have to say? Ans. It is correct.
Q. I put it to you that you knew that Mr. S.N. Chowdhury was wholly unauthrised to enter into any lease deed in respect of the property in question and therefore, you paid the amount of Rs. 25 lacs to Sh. S.N. Chowdhury as bribe money in cash to enter into an illegal unauthorized and collusive lease deed dated 06.03.2012. What do you have to say? Ans. It is incorrect. The suggestions made are wrong. As stated earlier Mr. S.N. Chowdhury had full authority and had shared with me a copy of the resolution of the trust authorizing him to lease the subject premises".
14.(e) Thus, admittedly the amount of Rs. 25 lacs allegedly paid as a security deposit has not been mentioned in the lease CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 16 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR 13:20:50 +0530 deed Ex. PW-1/D1. Further, as per defendant, he did not remember the mode of the payment of such a huge amount and it is against the course of human nature that any person paying Rs. 25 lacs as security deposit would not remember the exact date and mode of payment, specifically when the security deposit was refundable amount.
14.(f) It is also important to note that the lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1 mentioned that at the time of execution of lease deed dated 14.04.2006, defendant had paid Rs. 1,20,000/- by way of cheque towards interest free refundable security and at the time of execution of lease deed dated 06.03.2012, defendant had paid additional amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- by way of cheque as interest free security amount and it nowhere stated that defendant had paid another amount of Rs. 25 lacs as an interest free refundable security to Late Sh. S.N. Choudhury. Thus, the receipt Ex. DW-1/X6 is contradictory to the lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1 i.e. the document produced by defendant himself.
15. Further, it has been argued on behalf of defendant that the trustees were aware of the rent being accepted by the trust in terms of the lease deed dated 06.03.2012 and the witness himself has stated in Answer to Question No.16 and 17 that they reconciled, accepted and acquiesced the action of Sh. S.N. Chowdhury. The lease deed dated 06.03.2012 is not the subject matter of the suit and the suit itself is not maintainable. The Respondent is in lawful occupation of the premises by virtue of the Registered Lease Deed executed in its favour on 06.03.2012. The fallacy of the Plaintiff and especially the remaining two CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 17 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP 2025.07.05 Date:
KAUR 13:20:54 +0530 Trustees is apparent that they have initiated action only after the death of two Trustees in 2019 and 2021 which clearly shows the mala fide of the Trustees who have also not appointed the children of the deceased trustees as per the principle of the trust and as per the last wishes of the creator of the trust.
As far as the objections of the defendant with respect to appointment of children of deceased trustee is concerned, defendant being tenant of plaintiff Trust is estopped from questioning the management of the Trust by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act because once a tenant is always a tenant and tenant cannot take a benefit of internal dispute or matters of the owner Trust.
Further, there is nothing on record to show that other trustees of Trust except Sh. S.N. Chowdhury had the knowledge of registered lease deed dated 06.03.2012. Moreover, validity of lease deed is already under serious clouds as mentioned above and as per the clauses of the Trust as mentioned above, the trustees have to act unanimously and therefore, the trustees have to unanimously accepted the lease deed dated 06.03.2012 and the lease deed dated 06.03.2012 is a written document and therefore, is required to be accept by all trustees in writing without which the oral acceptance or knowledge of other trustees has no legal sanctity.
16. Further, the plaintiff has relied upon various judgments and all the judgments have categorically held that :
"The Indian Trust Act, though applicable to private charitable trusts, but principles whereof are applicable to public charitable trusts also. In Section 47 thereof, provides so. The Apex Court recently in J.P. Srivastava & Sons Pvt Ltd v. Gwalior Sugar Co Ltd MANU/SC/0927/2004 : AIR2005SC83, CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 18 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
2025.07.05 KAUR 13:21:00 +0530 cited with approval Atmaram Ranchodbhai v. Gulamhusein Gulam MANU/GJ/ 0112/1973 holding, whether a trust is a private trust governed by the Indian Trusts Act or is a public charitable or religious trust, a trustee cannot delegate any of his duties, functions and powers to a co-trustee or to any person unless the instrument of trust so provides or the delegation is necessary or the beneficiaries competent to contract consent to the delegation or the delegation is in the regular course of business. It was further held that the trustees even by a unanimous resolution authorise one of themselves to act as managing trustee for executing the duties, functions and powers relating to the trust and everyone of them must jo in the execution of such duties, functions and powers"
(As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Hoshiar Singh Mann and Ors. Vs. Charan Singh MANU/DE/0539/2009 -162(2009)DLT208).
Thus, the act of Sh. S.N. Chowdhury in letting out the property by way of lease deed dated 06.03.2012, being not unanimous, is not binding upon the Trust.
17. Further, plaintiff has produced sufficient number of lease deeds Ex. PW-1/X1 to Ex. PW-1/X6 and PW-1/X24 to Ex. PW-1/X39 to prove that the rent of suit premises at the rate of Rs. 83,800/- is much less and the properties of the trust situated in the same vicinity are fetching much more rent. For example the another portion of the same property is fetching rent at rate of Rs. 1,40,000/- per month as per lease deed dt. 26.10.2020 Ex PW1/X30. Similarly, the same property was let out at the rent of Rs. 1,55,000/- per month vide lease deed dt. 28.07.2022 Ex PW1/24.
18. Further, as per the Trust deed Ex. PW-1/1, the trustees are bound to act in a manner which is most beneficial to the interests of the Trust. In the present matter, the lease deed dated 06.03.2012 Ex. PW-1/D1 is a lease for 21 years with the option to renew the same for another 21 years only at the option of the defendant and the Trust has no say if defendant decides to renew CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 19 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05 13:21:05 +0530 the lease deed for another 21 years. Interestingly, as per lease deed dated 06.03.2012, the Trust has no option to terminate the lease deed except only in case of one eventuality i.e. non- payment of rent by the defendant. Considering the status and profession of defendant, the probability of non-payment of rent by defendant is almost Nil. Further, plaintiff has already proved that the market rent of the suit premises is far more than the amount being paid by the defendant i.e. rent at the rate of Rs. 83,800/- per month. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, even if it is considered that trustees had knowledge of the lease deed dated 06.03.2012, it is not sufficient to justify the retention of possession by the defendant in future because mere knowledge of trustees is insufficient unless and until it is ratified in writing by the trust, specifically considering the fact that the lease deed is not beneficial to the Trust, it being almost irrevocable qua the Trust and the rent far less than the market rent.
19.(a) Further, defendant has taken the plea that the lease deed dated 06.03.2012 is not the subject matter and therefore, Court cannot decide its authenticity. It has been further argued that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as plaintiff has not sought the relief of cancellation of lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1 and defendant is lawful tenant and occupation of the suit premises by virtue of lease deed dated 06.03.2012 which is a valid and subsisting and is not subject matter of the present suit.
19.(b) On the other hand, plaintiff has opposed the arguments stating that there is no question of seeking declaration that CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 20 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR 13:21:09 +0530 document is void because the document is void ab initio. It was never executed by plaintiff at all. Plaintiff has further urged that it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., MANU/SC/8139/2006 as following:
"When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity".
19.(c) Arguments heard. Record perused.
19.(d) Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 provides for the cancellation of the document and it states that the Court can cancel a document if it is void or voidable and the plaintiff has a reasonable apprehension that the existence of such document can harm the plaintiff. Thus, cancellation is required when the signatory of the document seeks to invalidate the document on the ground that it was signed under fraud, misrepresentation or coercion. However, if a document is void ab initio i.e. forged or created without any legal authority, then it is legally non-existent and its cancellation is not required.
19.(e) In the present suit, the contention of plaintiff is that Late Sh. S.N. Chowdhury was never authorised to execute the lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1 nor he can execute the said lease deed without unanimous decision of other trustees. The plaintiff has nowhere stated that the lease deed was signed under misrepresentation or mistake of law or fact. Rather the contention of the plaintiff is that the document has no legal sanctity being signed by the trustees having no authority to create a binding lease deed against the plaintiff.
CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 21 of 25M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally by PRABH DEEP KAUR signed DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05 13:21:13 +0530
19.(f) Further, the Court is looking into the authenticity of the lease deed Ex. PW-1/D6 as the defendant has resisted the claim of plaintiff taking the plea that defendant is a lawful tenant and occupation of the suit premises by virtue of lease deed dated 06.03.2012. Therefore, the lease deed dated 06.03.2012 is material and is in issue being integral part of defence of the defendant and because it is part of defendant's defence, plaintiff is not bound to seek its cancellation or any declaration quo it.
20. Further, the defendant has raised the objection as to authority of PW-1 /Sh. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary i.e. Trustee of plaintiff Trust to file and institute the suit on behalf of Trust.
As far as this issue is concerned, admittedly there are two trustees at present and both trustees have joined the suit as the plaint is supported with affidavit of both trustees i.e. Sh. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary and Sh. Arun Kr. Bora. Thus, the requirement of unanimous action has been completed and as far as the question of testimony of PW-1 is concerned, there is no law which requires that all the trustees are required to enter into witness box to prove the case.
21.(a) In view of above discussion, it is clear that plaintiff has been able to prove that the defendant was tenant of the Trust by virtue of lease deed dated 16.04.2006 and it was a monthly tenancy and though Sh. S.N. Chowdhury had let out the property to defendant without a unanimous resolution of Trust but the trustees have later on accepted the tenancy which was monthly tenancy and after death of Sh. S.N. Chowdhury on 17.02.2021, plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of defendant vide legal notice CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 22 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR KAUR 13:21:41 +0530 dated 08.11.2021. As far as the defence of defendant is concerned, defendant has failed to prove that late Sh. S.N. Chowdhury had authority to enter into registered lease deed dated 06.03.2012 Ex. PW-1/D1 with the defendant and plaintiff has been able to shake the credibility of lease deed Ex. PW-1/D1 and thus, defendant has failed to prove that his tenancy is governed by the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 06.03.2012 Ex. PW-1/D1.
21.(b).Admittedly, defendant has paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 83,800/- per month till date and defendant is not in arrears of any rent.
21.(c) Further, as mentioned above, plaintiff has been able to prove that the suit premises can fetch far more rent than the rent being paid by the defendant at the rate of Rs. 83,800/- per month. Further, plaintiff has proved that the tenancy of defendant had been duly terminated vide legal notice dated 08.11.2021. Defendant has admitted receiving of legal notice, rather defendant has duly replied to the same.
21.(d) Moreover, it is settled principle of law that filing of the suit itself is notice to quit. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Nopany Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (supra) that :-
".........it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Therefore, no notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the applicant".
The said ratio was relied by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Nitin Jain Vs. Geeta Raheja, DHC 2015 wherein it has been CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 23 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally by PRABH DEEP KAUR signed DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.05 13:21:45 +0530 held that :-
"However, even if one were to assume that the legal notice dated 25.01.2011 was not served on the appellant/defendant, the position as it obtains in law today, is that, once a suit is filed for possession the mere fact that no notice to quit and / or to vacate a demised premises is given will not inhibit a court from passing a decree of possession if, there is no other impediment in law, as the institution of the suit is an expression of the intention to seek possession".
24. Considering the evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove the prevalent market rent and the location of the property, it can be easily concluded that the appropriate rent of the suit premises should be Rs. 1,30,000/- per month from the date of termination of the tenancy i.e. from 01.12.2021 with with 10% increase per annum. (After the first increase, 10% increase is to be calculated at the enhanced rent for each subsequent year). Accordingly, defendant is liability to pay the rent @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per month from the date of termination of the tenancy i.e. from 01.12.2021 with with 10% increase per annum. (After the first increase, 10% increase is to be calculated at the enhanced rent for each subsequent year). The security amount mentioned in the lease deed dated 16.04.2006 Ex. DW-1/X2 and the amount already paid by the defendant towards the rent from the date of filing of the suit till date, will be adjusted towards the arrears of rent calculated @Rs. 1,30,000/- from the date of termination of the tenancy i.e. from 01.12.2021 with with 10% increase per annum. Accordingly, issue no. I to III are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Relief.
25. In the light of above mentioned findings, the suit of CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 24 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR 13:21:48 +0530 plaintiff is hereby decreed with the following reliefs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant:
(i) Decree of possession/ejectment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the suit premises i.e. Ground Floor of the Property 145-A, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 and defendant is directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within 60 days from today.
(ii) Decree of arrears of rent and damages against defendant at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy i.e. from November 2021 till vacation of the suit property. (After the first increase, 10% increase is to be calculated at the enhanced rent for each subsequent year).
Plaintiff is also entitled for interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the decreetal amount till its realization. The security amount mentioned in the lease deed dated 16.04.2006 Ex. DW-1/X2 and the amount already paid by the defendant towards the rent from the date of filing of the suit till date, will be adjusted towards the arrears of rent calculated @Rs. 1,30,000/- from the date of termination of the tenancy i.e. from 01.12.2021 with with 10% increase per annum. The rate of interest is to commence from the date of decree till realization of decreetal amount.
(iii) Cost of suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be cosigned to record room.
Typed to the direct dictation and (Prabh Deep Kaur) announced in the open court District Judge-05, South East nd on this 3 July, 2025 Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ 112/22 Page No. 25 of 25 M/s Jugal Kishore Chowdhury Charitable And Educational Trust Vs. Shyam Divan Dated 03.07.25 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP Date: 2025.07.05 KAUR KAUR 13:21:52 +0530