Delhi District Court
Mr. Sant Dayal vs Shri Sita Ram on 1 July, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. RICHA MANCHANDA
CIVIL JUDGE : CENTRAL03 : ROOM No. 346 : THC : DELHI.
Suit No. 178/2009
Mr. Sant Dayal, S/o Shri Bhola Ram,
R/o H. No. 51, Gali No. 13, Anand Parbat, Nai Basti,
New Delhi110005. ...........................Plaintiff
Vs.
Shri Sita Ram, S/o Late Shri Ram Saran,
R/o H. No. 51, Gali No. 13, Anand Parbat, Nai Basti,
New Delhi110005. ...............................Defendant
Suit for Permanent Injunction
Date of institution : 04.04.2009.
Date of Decision : 01.07.2013.
Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram
2
J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Essential facts necessary for disposal of the present suit as per plaint are that plaintiff is a tenant and in possession of one room with common amenities situated in property bearing No. 51, Gali No. 13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi110005, as shown in green colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint ( hereinafter referred to as 'The suit property' for the sake of brevity ). The plaintiff had taken the suit premises on rent about 40 years back from Mrs. Bhagwani Devi wife of Late Shri Ram Saran at the rate of Rs.25/ per month exclusive of electricity and water charges. During her lifetime Mrs. Bhagwani Devi used to collect rent from plaintiff. She died intestate leaving behind three sons namely Jai Prakash, Sita Ram and Roshan Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 3 Lal. After the death of Mrs. Bhagwani Devi, the defendant started collecting rent from the plaintiff. The tenancy of plaintiff is oral and at the time of creation of tenancy, oral terms and conditions were settled between the parties. Since the inception of tenancy, the plaintiff is residing in the suit premises alongwith his family members and is regularly paying the rent to the defendant. However, no rentreceipt has been issued by the plaintiff to the defendant till date.
Later, Shri Jai Parkash and Shri Roshan Lal died leaving behind their respective wives and children. Now, the defendant as well as legal heirs of Shri Jai Parkash and Shri Roshan Lal are the landlords qua the plaintiff.
3. It is alleged that plaintiff was paying rent regularly to the defendant but later the defendant stopped collecting rent and along with his sons started threatening plaintiff to forcibly dispossess the Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 4 plaintiff from the suit property. On 20.03.2009, the defendant along with his sons threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises otherwise they will use force to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. On 23.03.2009, the defendant tried to use force to dispossess the plaintiff from the tenanted premises, however the plaintiff managed the situation and went to the lodge complaint with the police but no complaint was registered by the police on the pretext that the matter is civil in nature. The defendant is just trying to create false ground of eviction.
4. It is also alleged that on 27.03.2009, the plaintiff alongwith two respectables approached the defendant and requested not to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the tenanted premises and to stop threatening the plaintiff but defendant paid no heed and found adamant. Hence, the present suit.
Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 5
5. The cause of action to file the present suit accrued for the first time on 20.03.2009 when defendant for the first time threatened to dispossess the plaintiff saying that he is going to sell out the suit property. The cause of action further arose on 23.03.2009 and 27.03.2009 when defendant made attempt of forcible dispossess and threatened the plaintiff. The cause of action still subsists as threats of defendant & his sons are continuing.
The tenanted premises is situated in Delhi. The parties to the suit also reside and work for gain at Delhi. Hence, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
6. The defendant has filed the written statement on 14.09.2009 controverting the allegations levelled against him and has submitted that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true facts. The plaintiff is not in possession of Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 6 the suit property, hence the question of forcible dispossess does not arise at all. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property by Mrs. Bhagwani Devi at the rate of Rs.60/ per month for few months. He has assured to vacate the tenanted premises but later he became adamant. There was no electricity or water connection in the suit property at that time. However, the plaintiff has enhanced the rent in about 1985 up to Rs.100/, in 1990 up to Rs. 150/ per month, in 1995 up to Rs.250/ per month and also agreed to pay rent @ Rs.400/ per month with effect from First January, 2000. The plaintiff further paid rent up to March, 2004 @ Rs.600/ per month and thereafter he left the room after taking his belongings and leaving the waste things there under his lock and key and his whereabouts were not known to the defendant. The plaintiff has filed the present suit by cooking up a false story on ill advise and under the garb of present suit he wants to keep lock the room without making Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 7 payment of rent to the defendant. All other allegations levelled against the defendant are false, baseless and concocted.
The site plan filed by plaintiff is also wrong and not as per the site. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
7. The plaintiff has filed replication controverting the allegations levelled against him in the written statement and has reiterated the stand as taken in the plaint. It is stated that at the time of inception of tenancy, the rate of rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.25/ per month and later it enhanced to Rs.60/ per month. The mother of defendant used to issue rentreceipts to the plaintiff. After the death of Mrs. Bhagwani Devi, the plaintiff has paid rent to defendant, wife of deceased Roshan Lal namely Rajni and son of Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 8 deceased Jai Prakash namely Lokesh have collected the rent from plaintiff but no rentreceipt was ever issued to him. The plaintiff is regularly residing in the tenanted premises and is having his election identity card and ration card at the address of suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has the cause of action and the suit is liable to be decreed in his favour.
8. On 11.05.2011, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP (2) Whether there is any cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD (3) Relief.
9. The plaintiff has examined himself as the only witness in support of the plaint. Shri Sant Dayal, S/o Late Bhola Ram appeared as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit which is Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 9 exhibited as EX. PW1/A. He also relied upon certain documents in support of the plaint. EX. PW1/1 is the site plan of the suit premises. EX. PW1/2 [ collectively 53 ( 93 ) in numbers ] are the photocopies of rent receipts issued by Mrs. Bhagwani Devi. PW1 was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendant.
Vide a separate statement of plaintiff, P.E was closed in affirmative on 27.09.2012.
10. The defendant have also examined two witnesses in support of his defense.
Shri Sita Ram, S/o Shri Ram Saran appeared as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit which is exhibited as EX. DW1/A. DW1 was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Shri Vijay Kumar, S/o Shri Lal Chand appeared as DW2 Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 10 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit which is exhibited as EX. DW2/A. DW2 was also crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Vide a separate statement of Shri Sita Ram, D.E was directed to be closed on 10.04.2013.
11. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of plaintiff on 26.04.2013. However, despite opportunities no one came forward to address the final arguments on behalf of defendant. Later, written arguments were filed on behalf of defendant on 21.05.2013.
12. I have already heard the rival submissions of both the parties as well as have carefully gone through the material placed on record.
13. My issuewise findings are as follows : ISSUE No. 1.
Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 11 (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been admitted by the defendant. However, it is the contention of defendant that tenanted premises is lying locked by the plaintiff and that since he has not paid any rent, the plaintiff has no right to claim any relief in the present suit. Also, in the written statement, the defendant denies physical possession of the suit premises with the plaintiff. However, perusal of the record reveals that the defendant made a statement before the Court on 14.12.2009 after filing of the written statement wherein he stated that plaintiff is residing in the suit premises. Further, he also stated on oath that the suit property is not lying locked and that upon asking for enhancement of rent, the plaintiff has Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 12 filed the present suit. Therefore, the contention of the defendant made in the written statement is washed away by the testimony of defendant on 14.12.2009.
Also, in the crossexamination of DW1 the defendant admitted that plaintiff was sending the rent of the tenanted premises @ Rs.60/ per month through money order but he refused to accept the same. Further, the defendant has also admitted that the Court of Ld. Additional Rent Controller has directed the rent of tenanted premises to be @ Rs.60/ per month and further he also admitted that plaintiff is depositing the rent before the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.
In view of the same, it stands proved that plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises. Further, it also stands proved that plaintiff is depositing the rent before the Court of Ld. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. In view of the same, the plaintiff has proved his Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 13 case and, therefore he is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises.
The issue No. 1, therefore stands decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 2.
(2) Whether there is any cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. It is contended by the defendant in the written statement that plaintiff is not in possession of the tenanted premises, hence he has no cause of action to file the present suit.
In Halsbury Laws of England ( Fourth Edition ), it has been stated as follows :
" Cause of Action" has been defined as meaning simply a Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram 14 factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest times to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse.
It is averred in the plaint that the cause of action to file the present suit accrued on 20.03.2009 when defendant for the first time threatened to dispossess the plaintiff saying that he is going to sell out the suit property. The cause of action further arose on 23.03.2009 and 27.03.2009 when defendant made attempt of forcible dispossess and threatened the plaintiff. The cause of action still subsists as threats of defendant & his sons are continuing. Hence, the plaint finds embodied in itself the cause of action.
In view of the above discussion, the issue No. 2 stands decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram
15
RELIEF
In view of the above discussion, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. A decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant, his sons & associates etc. are hereby restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises bearing No. 51, Gali No. 13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi110005, as shown in green colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint, without following due process of law. The suit is, thus decreed.
14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court ( RICHA MANCHANDA ) on 1 July, 2013. CIVIL JUDGE : CENTRAL03 : THC : Delhi.
st
Suit No. 178/2009 Sant Dayal Vs. Sita Ram