Delhi District Court
Sh. Fazal Ahmed S/O Mohd. Deed vs ) Sh. Shabeer Ahmed on 19 May, 2011
Suit no. 366A/02 1 Date : 19.05.2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
CIVIL JUDGE, (CENTRAL-02), DELHI.
SUIT NO. 366A/02
Sh. Fazal Ahmed S/o Mohd. Deed
r/o K-27, Qila Qadam Sharif,
Nabi Karim, Paharganj,
New Delhi ....Plaintiff
Versus
1) Sh. Shabeer Ahmed
S/o Sh. Quamaruddin @ Kammo
r/o K-30, Qila Qadam Sharif
Nabi Karim, Paharganj,
New Delhi
2) Zubeda Bi w/o Mohd. Haneef
r/o 6416, Gali Ishwari Prashad
Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi ....Defendant
Date of Institution: 01.11.1994
Date of Reserving for Judgment: 10.05.2011
Date of Judgment: 19.05.2011
JUDGEMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 10,800/- as arrears of rents from defendant no. 1 for a period of 1.10.91 to 31.10.94 in respect of tenanted premises forming part of house no. K-30, Qila Qadam Sharif, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi.
Page 1/16Suit no. 366A/02 2 Date : 19.05.2011
2. It is stated in the plaint that house no. K-30, Qila Qadam Sharif, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi was in dilapidated condition in the year 1964 and was occupied by Sh. Raheem Baksh son of Sh. Chotte Khan. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh was having title of possessory ownership. Sh. Raheem Baksh constructed three rooms on the ground floor, one room and latrine on the first floor. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh used to induct tenants from time to time in the suit property and defendant no. 1 was inducted as tenant around 1982 for residential purposes in respect of two rooms on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh died on 12.12.1985 and after his death the defendant no. 1 stopped paying rent to the plaintiff.
3. It is stated that the mother of Sh. Raheem Baksh had married with the father of the plaintiff after the death of her previous husband Sh. Chotte Khan. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh had orally gifted the said suit property to the plaintiff on 01.12.1985 and plaintiff is owner of the property since then. It is stated that gift was made in the presence of close relatives and respectable persons of locality. It is stated that defendant no. 1 has become tenant of the plaintiff by operation of law and defendant no. 1 is liable to pay rent to the plaintiff. It is stated that the property has also been mutated in the name of plaintiff in the MCD records. It is stated that plaintiff earlier filed eviction petition against one Sh. Nadim Ahmed who was residing on the ground floor of the suit property and the said suit has been decreed in the favour of the plaintiff.
Page 2/16Suit no. 366A/02 3 Date : 19.05.2011 It is stated that defendant no. 2 is real sister of the plaintiff and is making false claim of her ownership in the suit property. It is stated that defendant no. 2 had earlier filed suit no. 631/88 in the court of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Sub Judge, Delhi seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction and the said suit has been dismissed by the court.
4. It is stated that defendant no. 1 in collusion with defendant no. 2 is refusing to pay the arrears of rent. It is stated that last demand was made from the defendant on 29.10.1994 but he refused to pay the rent. The plaintiff has claimed the arrears of rent from 1.10.91 to 31.10.94 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
5. Defendant no. 1 in its written statement has stated that plaintiff has suppressed the facts and has not disclosed the details about eviction petition bearing no. 428/86 U/s 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act which has been dismissed by the court of Sh. N.K. Goel, Ld. ARC, Delhi. It is stated that by said order court held that plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord qua defendant in respect of suit property. It is stated that the present suit is barred by resjudicata in view of judgment passed by Sh. N.K. Goel, Ld. ARC, Delhi. It is stated that in eviction petition no. 428/86 the court also held that the suit premises were let out to the defendant no. 1 for residential cum commercial purposes. It is stated that an application U/s 15(2) Delhi Rent Control Act seeking directions to the defendant for depositing rent in the court has been also Page 3/16 Suit no. 366A/02 4 Date : 19.05.2011 dismissed by Sh. Dinesh Dayal, Ld. ARC, Delhi. It is stated that this fact is also suppressed by the plaintiff. It is stated that the suit is bad mis-joinder of parties. It is stated that the suit is not maintainable because plaintiff is alleging defendant no. 1 to be tenant in the premises. Defendant has denied that house no. K-30, Qila Qadam Sharif, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi was occupied by Sh. Raheem Baksh and was constructed by him. It is denied that Sh. Raheem Baksh is owner of suit property. It is denied that defendant no. 1 was inducted as tenant by Sh. Raheem Baksh in the year 1982. However defendant has admitted that he is tenant under Smt. Zubeda Begam, wife of Sh. Mohd. Haneef. It is stated that plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit. It is denied that Sh. Raheem Baksh gifted the property to the plaintiff on 1.12.1985 and plaintiff became owner since then. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh was not owner of the suit property and the fact of gift is denied. It is denied that the defendant no. 1 has become tenant of plaintiff by operation of law after the death of Sh. Raheem Baksh. It is denied that the location in MCD records is in the name of plaintiff. Defendant has expressed his ignorance about the suit filed by plaintiff against one Sh. Nadeem Ahmed. It is admitted that defendant no. 2 is real sister of plaintiff. Defendant has denied knowledge about the suit bearing no. 631/98 filed by the defendant no. 2 against the plaintiff.
6. In replication plaintiff has reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. Plaintiff has admitted the findings given by Ld. ARC, stating that scope of those findings are limited only for the said case and could not be Page 4/16 Suit no. 366A/02 5 Date : 19.05.2011 taken as final adjudication in respect of controversy involved in present case. Plaintiff has denied that the suit is barred by resjudicata. It is admitted that application U/s 15 Delhi Rent Control Act was not allowed.
7. After completion of the pleadings by order dated 29.05.95 the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor:
a) Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata? OPD
b) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD
c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for? If so, for what amount, at what rate and for which period? OPP
d) Relief
8. Before proceeding further it is relevant to point out that issue no. 1 was treated as preliminary issue and suit was dismissed by order 22.05.99 passed by my Ld. Predecessor. However said order was set aside by Hon'ble High Court in C.R. No. 931/99 by order dated 16.04.2002.
9. It is also pertinent to mention here that by order dated 14.01.04 while disposing application U/o 18 CPC filed by defendant my Ld. Predecessor held that the affidavit of plaintiff tendered in examination in chief held on 13.11.03 cannot be read in evidence because the examination in chief of the plaintiff was also recorded on 12.07.95. My Ld. Predecessor also directed that cross examination of the plaintiff be conducted on the basis of examination in chief held on 12.07.95. It is also pertinent to mention that the application U/o 6 rule 17 CPC moved by plaintiff was also dismissed by order dated 09.08.05 passed by my Page 5/16 Suit no. 366A/02 6 Date : 19.05.2011 Ld. Predecessor. The defendant no. 2 was proceeded ex parte by order dated 08.03.95.
10. Plaintiff in order to discharge his burden has examined PW1 Sh. Fazal Ahmed and PW2 Sh. Babu Khan however defendant on the other side has examined DW1 Sh. Shabeer Ahmed in support of his case. The issue wise findings in the present case are as follows:
11. Issue no. 1 The onus to prove this issue was on defendant. This issue was treated as preliminary issue and the suit was dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor by order dated 22.05.99. However thereafter by order dated 16.04.02 in CR no. 931/99 the Hon'ble High Court set aside the aforesaid order and held that the suit is not barred by resjudicata. In view of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.
12. Issue no. 2 The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. It is stated that the suit is not maintainable due to mis-joinder of parties as no relief has been sought by plaintiff against the defendant no. 2. In present case defendant no. 1 is claiming to be tenant under defendant no. 2. There is direct conflict of interest qua recovery of rent and the capacity of plaintiff as landlord as against defendant no. 2 however I am of the opinion that considering the factual matrix of the case it cannot be said Page 6/16 Suit no. 366A/02 7 Date : 19.05.2011 that defendant no.2 is not a necessary party. Therefore this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
13. Issue no. 3 The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. PW1 in its examination in chief has stated that Late Sh. Raheem Baksh S/o Sh. Chotte Baksh got disputed premises in the year 1964. It is stated that Late Sh. Raheem Baksh used to live in one of the portion and the other portion was let out to tenant. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh was living alone and was having neither wife nor children. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh let out the property to defendant @ Rs. 300/- per month. It is stated that on 1.12.1985 during his life Late Sh. Raheem Baksh gifted the property to the plaintiff in the presence of 21 persons as per the muslim law. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh expired on 12.12.1985 and after his death plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent. It is stated the house tax is paid by the plaintiff in his name. It is admitted that the eviction petition filed by plaintiff against the defendant has been dismissed. It is stated that the suit filed by Smt. Zubeda Bi in the court of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ld. Sub Judge, Delhi has been decided in favour of plaintiff. It is stated that despite demand of rent from the defendant, the defendant has not paid the rent. PW1 in his cross examination has stated that from the wedlock of his father Sh. Mohd. Din married to Marigam (Shakina) two daughters were born. After death of Shakina Sh. Mohd. Din married to Amna Bi (plaintiff's mother) and from this wedlock three children namely plaintiff, Babu Khan and Zubeda Bi Page 7/16 Suit no. 366A/02 8 Date : 19.05.2011 were born. It is stated that Sh. Babu Khan has died issue less. It is stated that the suit property was occupied by Late Sh. Raheem Baksh as at the time the property was not sold and only possession was given. He had admitted that no documents were executed when occupation of the property was given to Sh. Raheem Baksh. It is admitted that Late Raheem Baksh let out the property to the defendant. It is admitted that nothing in writing was executed and no rent receipts has been issued. It is stated that the property was let out to the defendant by Sh. Raheem Baksh and not by Smt. Zubeda Begum. It is stated that plaintiff inherited property after the death of Sh. Raheem Baksh as he died issue less. However contrary to the stand taken through out the case plaintiff PW1 in his cross examination dated 01.03.05 admitted that property was not gifted by Sh. Raheem Baksh to the plaintiff.
14. PW2 Sh. Babu Lal has stated in his testimony that he was visiting the premises of Late Sh. Raheem Baksh. It is stated that Late Sh. Raheem Baksh was the owner of house no. K-30, Qila Qadam Sharif, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi. PW2 has stated that he got the accommodation for defendant no. 1 on rent from Sh. Raheem Baksh in the year 1982 on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. It is stated that after death of Sh. Raheem Baksh in December 1985 defendant no. 1 refused to pay the rent. It is stated that plaintiff is brother of Sh. Raheem Baksh and Sh. Raheem Baksh died issue less. It is stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh has gifted the suit property by oral declaration to the plaintiff in December 1985 in the presence of other relatives and friends. He has Page 8/16 Suit no. 366A/02 9 Date : 19.05.2011 admitted that no rent agreement has been executed in respect of his tenancy and no rent receipt has been issued till date.
15.It is admitted by PW2 that defendant is residing in suit property for last 25 to 30 yrs. It is also admitted that he had never seen any document pertaining to ownership of Sh. Raheem Baksh in the suit property. PW2 has expressed his ignorance about the purchase of suit property by Sh. Raheem Baksh. He expressed his ignorance about the time/year when the gift was made in favour of plaintiff by Sh. Raheem Baksh.
16.DW1 Sh. Shabeer Ahmad in his testimony has stated that the plaintiff has suppressed facts. It is stated that the plaintiff had filed eviction petition bearing no. 428/86 U/s 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Controller Act and the said petition was dismissed by the court of Sh. N.K. Goel, Ld. ARC Delhi. While deciding the petition the court held that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor the land lord of the property qua defendant. The judgment passed by Sh. N.K. Goel is Ex. PW1/2. It is also stated that the application U/s 15(2) of DRC Act for deposit of rent in the court was also dismissed by Ld. ARC. It is stated by defendant no. 1 that the suit property has been occupied by defendant no. 1 under the tenancy of defendant no. 2 Smt. Zubeda Begum. It is stated that the property was never owned by Sh. Raheem Baksh and Sh. Raheem Baksh has no right, title or interest in the suit property. Witness has also denied the alleged gift by Sh. Raheem Baksh in favour of plaintiff. It is stated that the landlady of defendant no. 1 is Smt. Zubeda Begam and upto date Page 9/16 Suit no. 366A/02 10 Date : 19.05.2011 rent has been paid by defendant no. 1 to her. DW1 has admitted that he has not seen any title document in respect of property no. K-30, Qila Qadam Sharif, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi. It is admitted that no rent agreement was executed by Smt. Zubeda Begum in their favour and no rent receipts were issued by Smt. Zubeda Begum. DW1 has expressed his ignorance as to the fact that who was in possession of the suit property before the year 1974. It is stated that he had seen Smt. Zubeda Begum in property no. K-30, Qila Qadam Sharif, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi for the first time in year 1974-75. It is admitted that Sh. Raheem Baksh has died issueless. It is stated that Smt. Zubeda Begum used to claim herself as the owner of the suit property and that is how the witness knows that Smt. Zubeda Begum is owner. Witness has denied that he has been inducted as tenant in the suit property by Sh. Raheem Baksh. DW1 has stated that he has never paid rent to Sh. Raheem Baksh as he was never the owner of the property in question. It is stated that he has paid all the arrears of rent to Smt. Zubeda Begum two yrs. ago. He has further stated that as per his knowledge the suit property can fetch Rs. 200-250 per month.
17.At this stage it is relevant to point out that the earlier litigation between the parties in petition no. 428/86 titled "Fazal Ahmad Vs Shabeer Ahmed" U/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act was dismissed by judgment dated 23.09.94 passed by Sh. N.K. Goel, Ld. ARC, Delhi. The relevant extract of that judgment is reproduced below:
Page 10/16Suit no. 366A/02 11 Date : 19.05.2011 "7. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contented that Sh. Raheem Baksh, petitioner's father's elder brother was the owner/landlord of the suit property and as Sh. Raheem Baksh died issueless leaving behind his widow, the petitioner became the owner/landlord of the suit property according to the Mohd. Law of Succession. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that Smt. Zubeda Begum w/o Sh. Mohd. Hanif is the owner of the suit property and the respondent has been paying rent either to her or to her husband. In para 19 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh was the cousin of the petitioner and his father expired when Raheem Baksh was an infant aged about 3 months; that after the death of his father, the mother of Raheem Baksh married the father of the petitioner and as such Raheem Baksh was brought up by the father of the petitioner; that Raheem Baksh died on 12.12.1985 leaving behind his wife as a sole member of his family; that after the death of Raheem Baksh the property devolved upon the petitioner according to the Mohd. Law of Succession and as such the petitioner is deemed to be the landlord in the eyes of law; that moreover Raheem Baksh gifted the property in question to the petitioner on 01.12.85 and asked all the tenants to attorn to him and that Raheem Baksh also delivered all the documents of the said property to the petitioner who accepted the gift. However, the petitioner has not filed any alleged gift deed or the alleged documents on the record to prove that Raheem Baksh was the owner of the suit property or that he had gifted the suit property to the petitioner. In order to prove the ownership, the parties have led oral evidence. In his statement as PW1, the petitioner has stated that Sh. Raheem Baksh, his father's elder brother's son was the owner of the suit property and after his death he has become legal heir. Raheem Baksh did not have any issue. In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that father's name of Raheem Baksh was Chhote Khan and after his death his widow married his petitioner's father. In her cross-examination, PW2 has stated that Raheem's mother married only once. It belies the version of PW1 that after the death of Sh. Chhote Khan, the father of Raheem Baksh, the mother of Raheem Baksh married the father of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner has not been able to lead any convincible evidence to prove that Raheem Baksh was the owner/landlord of the suit property and after his death he had become the owner/landlord thereof according to the Mohd. Law of Succession. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has put a great reliance on the certified copy of the judgment/order Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 to contend that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the suit property and Smt. Zubeda Begum had failed to prove that she was the Page 11/16 Suit no. 366A/02 12 Date : 19.05.2011 owner/landlord of the suit property. Ex. PW1/1 is the certified copy of the judgment delivered in the eviction petition no. E-427/86 entitled as Fazal Ahmed Vs. Nadim Ahmed. The said petition was filed U/s 14(1)
(e) read with Section 25-B of the said Act. In that case, the respondent did not file any application for leave to defend the eviction petition within the statutory period of 15 days. Therefore, it was held that the averments made in the petition were deemed to have been admitted by the respondent and accordingly an order of eviction against the respondent was passed. The said judgment was not delivered on merits. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner. Ex. PW1/2 is the certified copy of the order delivered in civil suit no. 631/88 entitled as Zubeda Bi Vs Fazal Ahmed and another. That suit was filed by Zubeda Bi for declaration and permanent injunction. In that case, the civil court framed a preliminary issue to the effect whether the plaint discloses any cause of action. The said issue was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant no. 1. Thus, it is clear that the civil suit was not decided on merits. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the said order is also of no help to the petitioner. The petitioner has to stand on his own legs. If the petitioner alleges that he is the owner/landlord of the suit property, he must prove the fact. If he is able to prove this fact by leading convinceable evidence, then the onus shifts upon the respondent to prove that the petitioner is not the owner/landlord of the suit property. In the present case, the petitioner has not lead any convinceable evidence to prove that previously Raheem Baksh was the owner/landlord of the suit property and after his death the petitioner has become the owner/landlord thereof according to the Mohd. Law of Succession. Neither in the petition nor in his statement as PW1, the petitioner has stated anywhere that the respondent has ever paid rent to him in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the fact that the respondent is also not able to prove that Smt. Zubeda Begum is the owner/landlady of the suit property does not make any difference. Therefore, I hold that petitioner has failed to prove that he is the owner/landlord of the suit property for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act."
18. In another litigation titled "Zubeda Bi Vs Sh. Fazal Ahmed" in RCA no. 197/2000 the court dismissed the appeal against judgment 18.07.89 in suit no. 631/88. The relevant extract is reproduced below:
Page 12/16Suit no. 366A/02 13 Date : 19.05.2011 " 6. Concisely, the relief of declaration sought by the appellant proceeds on the premises that against a sum of Rs. 6,000/- borrowed by Raheem Baksh from the appellant on 30.04.73, Raheem Baksh mortgaged the suit property in favour of the appellant as a security and when Raheem Baksh failed to repay the loan as agreed, Raheem Baksh handed over the constructive possession of the suit property to the appellant and thereby the appellant had became the owner of the suit property but her such title was put under cloud on account of an eviction order that was obtained by the respondent no. 1 against the respondent no. 2 from the court of the Ld. Rent Controller and thereby the respondent no.1 was trying to seek possession of the portion occupied by the respondent no. 2. Trial court appreciating the case of the appellant, concluded that there was no pre-existing right of the appellant in the suit property and the document that was the basis or the foundation of the suit did not create any right, title or interest in favour of the appellant, as the said document purported to have been executed by Raheem Baksh was a kind of mortgage deed. Sh. Arora, Ld. Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order strenuously contended that the mortgage created by Raheem Baksh in favour of the appellant was by way of deposit of title deeds and other documents and it did not call for either the execution or the registration of any documents. In the submissions of Sh. Arora, since the mortgage, subject matter of the suit was by way of an equitable mortgage, the Ld. Trial Court misdirected itself in proceeding on the premises that the appellant was asserting any right or interest in the suit property on the basis of a document allegedly executed by Raheem Baksh in his favour. It requires no elaboration that equitable mortgage is created by deposit of title deeds of the property and no document for the purpose is required to be executed. Evidence of deposit of title deeds for the purposes of creation of mortgage, of course, is a matter that can be shown or proved in any form, be it by a letter or recording an entry somewhere. Needless to say any such evidence only succeeds and does not precede the creation of mortgage. In that view of the matter what Sh. Arora, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended, as regards the principle of equitable mortgage cannot be disputed but is the case in hand as that of creation of an equitable mortgage is the question that requires consideration. Having considered the pleadings of the parties I do not find it to be so. In para 2 of the plaint, though the appellant has averred that Raheem Baksh deposited the title deeds and other documents of his property with the appellant as as security. It is the own case of the appellant in the same para that Sh. Raheem Baksh borrowed the money from the appellant and executed a receipt in that Page 13/16 Suit no. 366A/02 14 Date : 19.05.2011 regard. Furthermore, in para 4 of the plaint it has been averred that after the expiry of the time of 8 years as set out (emphasis supplied) in the said receipt, the appellant demanded the possession of the property from Raheem Baksh as he could not arrange the amount. Pleadings of the appellant, as such leave no doubt that it is in and by virtue of the said receipt, the appellant asserted its right in the suit property. When the appellant so asserts and seeks to assert its right in the suit property, in and by virtue of such document which is through titled 'a receipt' but sets out the terms & conditions of the mortgage, such a writing cannot be construed to be a writing evidencing the deposit of title deeds. When such a writing cannot be taken to be a writing limited to the extent of evidencing the deposit of title deeds but sets out the terms & conditions of mortgage, to my mind, it does call for the registration. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the observations made by the Ld. Trail court that the suit was founded on the basis of the rights purported to have been created in favour of the appellant by a document and the conclusions therefore arrived at. Even otherwise, the suit filed seeking declaration as the owner of the suit property on the alleged mortgage, I find is wholly misconceived, in as much as in the event of the mortgage being an equitable mortgage, the appellant could only seek relief of fore closure and not a declaration for having become the owner.
7. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed."
19.From the perusal of the earlier litigation between the parties it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming rights and title in the suit property on the basis of alleged gift made by Late Sh. Raheem Baksh in favour of plaintiff. So far as the gift in favour of plaintiff is concerned the version of plaintiff regarding the gift is inconsistent. Plaintiff in his own testimony has admitted that no gift has been made by Sh. Raheem Baksh in his favour. Moreover the fact that right of defendant no. 2 in the suit property has been declined in suit no. 631/88 also cannot confer any rights in the favour of plaintiff. It is also case of plaintiff that property has Page 14/16 Suit no. 366A/02 15 Date : 19.05.2011 been devolved in his favour by way of inheritance. It is admitted position that plaintiff and defendant no. 2 are brother and sister and it is not understood that if Sh. Raheem Baksh has died issue less then how can property devolve only in favour of plaintiff by way of inheritance.
20.Plaintiff has also failed to bring on record document showing that Sh. Raheem Baksh was owner of suit property. Plaintiff has also failed to show any rent receipts issued by Sh. Raheem Baksh to defendant no. 1. PW2 has also stated that he is not aware whether the property was purchased by Sh. Raheem Baksh or not. The testimony of PW2 in respect of gift becomes shadowed due to inconsistent version of plaintiff/PW1. Court cannot go seeking corroboration when plaintiff/PW1 has himself denied execution of any gift in his favour. Moreover the fact that defendant no. 1 has admitted defendant no. 2 as her landlord has also dented the case of the plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence showing the rights of plaintiff in the suit property and the denial made by defendant no. 1 it cannot be said that plaintiff has been able to establish himself as landlord of defendant no. 1 thereby entitling him to recover the arrears of rent. Plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus. Therefore this issue is accordingly decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
Page 15/16Suit no. 366A/02 16 Date : 19.05.2011 Relief
In view of the findings given above, I found no merit in present suit and the suit is dismissed. Costs are awarded in favour of defendant no. 1. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Announced in the open (Abhilash Malhotra)
court on 19.05.2011 Civil Judge, Central-02
Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi
Page 16/16