Delhi District Court
S. Inder Pal Singh vs Smt. Kanchan Wahi on 7 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE-05 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 2393/16
CNR No. DLET01-002616-2016
Smt. Kanchan Wahi
W/o Sh. Vikas Wahi
R/o. C-83 Sector-23
Noida UP.
...............Plaintiff
Vs.
S. Inder Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Kesar Singh
R/o D-3/16, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-51
..........Defendant
AND
COUNTER CLAIM NO. 12/2017
CNR No. DLET01-000246-2017
1. S. Inder Pal Singh
S/o Late S. Kesar Singh
2. S. Prabh Dayal Singh
S/o Late S. Kesar Singh
Both R/o D-3/16, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051
..........Counter-Claimants
Digitally signed
Vs. VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG
GARG 2024.10.07
16:34:33 +0530
CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh
&
CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 1 of 26
1. Smt. Kanchan Wahi
W/o Sh. Vikas Wahi
2. Shri Vikas Wahi
S/o Late Sh. Jeevan Lal Wahi
Karta-Vikas Wahi & Sons HUF
R/o C-83, Sector-23,
Noida UP
............ Non Counter-Claimants
Date of Institution Main Suit : 23.02.2016
Date of Filing of Counterclaim : 04.06.2016
Date of Final Arguments: 04.10.2024
Date of Decision: 07.10.2024
Final Decision of the Main suit :Decreed
Final Decision of Counterclaim : Dismissed
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF
RENT, FUTURE RENT AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
AND
COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF
DOCUMENTS AS FORGED AND FABRICATED, AND
PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.
Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2024.10.07
16:34:45 +0530
CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh
&
CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 2 of 26
JUDGMENT
1. In this common judgment, I shall adjudicate the plaintiff's suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, future rent, and permanent injunction, as well as the counter- claimants' counterclaim seeking a declaration that certain documents are forged and fabricated, along with requests for permanent and mandatory injunctions.
The Case of the Plaintiff and Non-counter-claimants, as Detailed in the Plaint:-
2. The essential facts necessary for adjudication, as outlined in the plaint, are as follows:-
Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh was the original owner of the suit property, bearing no. D-3/16, Ground Floor, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110005, with an area of 55.73 square yards. He sold the property to Vikas Wahi and Sons HUF through a registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA), registration no. 8851 dated 27.09.2015, for valid consideration. Subsequently, Vikas Wahi and Sons HUF gifted the suit property to the plaintiff, Smt. Kanchan Wahi, via a registered gift deed, registration no. 5080 dated 06.08.2015.Digitally signed
VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.10.07 16:34:53 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 3 of 26 Initially, Vikas Wahi and Sons HUF rented the suit property to the defendant, Sh. Inder Pal Singh, under a registered rent agreement, registration no. 5006 dated 19.06.2024, for a two-year period at a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- excluding other charges. Upon the transfer of ownership to the plaintiff, the defendant attorned to her as the tenant and acknowledged this through a letter dated 08.08.2015. It was agreed that the tenancy would continue under the same terms as outlined in the rent agreement dated 19.06.2024.
One of the terms stipulated that the defendant must vacate the premises if he failed to pay rent for two consecutive months. The defendant has not paid any rent to the plaintiff since August 2015. A legal notice dated 11.01.2016 was issued to the defendant, demanding vacant possession and payment of rent arrears. In response, the defendant acknowledged his liability and, through a letter dated 20.01.2016, agreed to vacate the property within seven days if he failed to pay the arrears. However, the defendant did not fulfill this promise and refused to comply with the notice.
This suit seeks possession of the suit premises, a decree for arrears of rent from 01.08.2015 till filing of the suit and future rent from filing of the suit till handing over of VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG CS No. 2393/16 GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:35:05 +0530 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 4 of 26 possession by defendant both at rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month, and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating any third-party interest in the suit premises.
Case of the Defendant and Counter Claimants as per Written Statement and Counterclaim:-
3. The essential facts necessary for adjudication, as outlined in the written statement and counterclaim, are as follows:
Initially, Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh (counter claimant no. 2), Sh. Inder Pal Singh (defendant and counter claimant no. 1), and Smt. Ranjit Kaur jointly purchased the property bearing no. D-3/16, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51 through a registered sale deed, registration no. 2340 dated 17.06.1999, executed by the previous owner, Sh. B. C. Gala. The property was later partitioned among them through a partition deed, registration no. 2626 dated 29.06.2001, making Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh, the defendant's brother, the sole owner of his share.
In September 2011, Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh took a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from financier Sh. Vikas Wahi, and as security for the loan, executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA), VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:35:14 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 5 of 26 which was to be canceled upon repayment. No other document was executed, but Sh. Vikas Wahi allegedly took signed blank papers and cheques from both Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh and his brother, Sh. Inder Pal Singh, with the assurance that these would be returned after the loan repayment. The loan of Rs. 10 lakhs was fully repaid on 19.12.2014 via RTGS by Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh, yet when he asked Sh. Vikas Wahi to cancel the GPA, the latter delayed the matter under various pretexts.
On 03.03.2016, at around 9:00 pm, the plaintiff's husband, Sh. Vikas Wahi, allegedly visited the residence/shop of Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh and demanded possession of the suit property. In response, Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh lodged a written complaint (DD No. 49B) on 03.03.2016 at PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi, against Sh. Vikas Wahi and his associates. A legal notice dated 18.03.2016 was also sent to Sh. Vikas Wahi on behalf of Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh, requesting the cancellation/revocation of the GPA. However, Sh. Vikas Wahi responded with a false and frivolous reply.
The defendant, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and seeks a decree in his counterclaim, declaring the gift deed dated 15.07.2015, the GPA dated 27.09.2011, and the rent agreement dated 20.06.2024 as VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:35:27 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 6 of 26 forged and fabricated. In his counterclaim, he also requests a permanent injunction restraining the non-counter- claimants/defendants from using or misappropriating these documents and interfering with his possession. Additionally, he seeks a mandatory injunction directing the non-counter- claimants to surrender all original copies of the aforementioned documents.
Replication and Reply to Counterclaim:-
4. The defendant and non-counter-claimants refuted the allegations and assertions made in the written statement and counterclaim, while reaffirming and upholding the statements made in their plaint in their replication and reply to the counterclaim. They further clarified that although non-
counter-claimant Sh. Vikas Wahi received Rs. 10 lakhs via RTGS, this was part of a separate loan transaction, and there was no connection between this payment and the execution of the GPA. No replication was filed on behalf of the defendant and counter-claimants.
Issues:-
5. Upon completion of the pleadings, separate issues were framed on January 9, 2017, for the trial of the main suit and the counterclaim:Digitally signed
Issues Framed in the Main Suit: VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.10.07 16:35:39 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 7 of 26
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession, as prayed for?OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of arrears of rent @ Rs. 30,000/- per month w.e.f. August, 2015 till filing of the suit?OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of future rent @ Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till handing over the possession?OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP.
5. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD.
6. Whether there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties?OPD.
7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties?OPD.
8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standie to file the present suit?OPD.
9. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD.
10. Relief.
No other issues were raised or presented by the parties at that time. Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2024.10.07
16:35:46 +0530
CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh
&
CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 8 of 26
Issues Framed in the Counterclaim:
1. Whether the counter claimant is entitled for the decree of declaration, declaring the alleged document i.e. Gift Deed dated 15.07 2015, alleged PA dated 27.9.2011 and alleged Rent Agreement dated 19.6.2014, being forged and fabricated?OPC.
2. Whether the counter claimant is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPC.
3.Whether the counter claimant is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPC.
4. Whether the counter claim has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPR.
5 Relief.
No other issues were raised or presented by the parties at that time.
Plaintiff and Non Counter Claimants' Evidence:-
6. The Plaintiff and non-counter claimant No. 1, Smt. Kanchan Wahi, examined herself as PW-1. She submitted her evidential affidavit, marked as Exhibit PW-1/A, during her examination-in-chief, wherein she reiterated the contents of the plaint and the reply to the counterclaim. She relied on the following documents during her examination-in-chief:
VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG 16:35:55 +0530 Date: 2024.10.07 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 9 of 26
1. Site Plan as Ex.PW1/1;
2. Copy of Irrevocable GPA dated 27.09.2011 as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR);
3. Copy of Rent Agreement dated 19.06.2014 as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR);
4. Copy of Gift Deed dated 15.07.2015 as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR);
5. Letter dated 08.08.2015 as Ex.PW1/5;
6. Copy of legal notice dated 11.01.2016 as Ex.PW1/6;
7. Postal Receipt as Ex.PW1/7;
8. Tracking Report as Ex.PW1/8;
9. Letter dated 20.01.2016 as Ex.PW1/9;
10. Certified copy of FIR No. 92/16 as Ex.PW1/10.
She was extensively cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant and the counter claimants.
Sh. Akhil Wahi testified as PW-2 and submitted his evidential affidavit, marked as Exhibit PW-2/A, during his examination-in-chief, wherein he reiterated most of the contents of the plaint. He relied on the documents already exhibited as Exhibits PW-1/2 to PW-1/5 and PW-1/9, and he also identified the signatures on those documents.
Digitally signedVIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.10.07 16:36:03 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 10 of 26 He was extensively cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant and the counter claimants.
Sh. Vikas Wahi testified as PW-3 and submitted his evidential affidavit, marked as Exhibit PW-3/A, during his examination-in-chief, wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and the reply to the counterclaim.
The defendant and counter-claimants, despite being granted multiple opportunities, failed to cross-examine PW-3.
Defendant and Counter Claimants Evidence:-
7. The defendant and counter claimants failed to present any evidence, despite being granted multiple opportunities.
Arguments:
8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and non-counter-
claimants argued in line with the plaint and reply to the counterclaim. He submitted that the defendants failed to testify under oath or present any evidence to support their case. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Kumar vs. Saroj Atal (2012 III AD Delhi
718), where the issue of better title was discussed. He further contended that the plaintiff had successfully proven her case, while the counter-claimants had failed to substantiate their VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:36:13 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 11 of 26 counterclaim.
On the issue of court fees raised in counterclaim issue no. 4, the learned counsel referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. [II (2010) SLT 746], arguing that the counter-claimants had not paid the requisite court fees. Concluding his arguments, he requested the court to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff and dismiss the counterclaim.
During the arguments, he clarified that although the plaintiff mentioned in her cross-examination that the possession of the suit property was with the bank, the bank no longer holds possession due to the judgment of the DRT (Ex. PW3/1). He asserted that the possession has reverted, with certain belongings of the defendant, Sh. Inder Pal Singh, still on the premises, thus necessitating a decree of possession in favor of the plaintiff.
No arguments were presented by the defendants or counter- claimants, despite being given ample opportunities.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and non-counter claimants, reviewed the record, and considered the relevant provisions of the law.
VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS
GARG
GARG Date: 2024.10.07
16:36:22 +0530
CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh
&
CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 12 of 26
Issue Wise Findings:-
10. Issue no. 1 to 8 (Main Suit):
In the main suit, it is claimed by the plaintiff that she became owner of the suit property by virtue of a gift deed which was executed in her favour by Vikas Wahi and Sons HUF. As per her, defendant Sh. Inder Pal Singh was the tenant of previous owner Vikas Wahi HUF by virtue of registered rent agreement bearing registered number 6667 dated 19.06.2024. As per plaintiff that after transferring of ownership in her, Sh. Inder Pal Singh became her tenant. As per her, defendant Sh. Inder Pal Singh accepted her as owner vide document Ex. PW1/5 and the tenancy remained as per terms and conditions of rent agreement dated 19.06.2024. It is further stated on behalf of the plaintiff that from August 2015, the defendant did not pay any rent to her. She was issued legal notice to the defendant. In reply to legal notice the defendant admitted his liability to pay the arrears of rent and agreed to vacate the suit property on non payment of arrears of rent vide letter number Ex. PW1/9.
On the other hand, defendant Sh. Inder Pal Singh admitted the execution of GPA in favour of Vikas Wahi and sons HUF. He even stated that his signatures were obtained on VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:36:32 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 13 of 26 some blank papers by Sh. Vikas Wahi. He submitted that his brother Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh is the real owner of the property. He further stated that the said GPA is null and void as same was executed by his brother Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh as collateral security for a loan of Rs. 10 lacs and the same was repaid.
The key issue is whether defendant Inder Pal Singh was a tenant of Vikas Wahi HUF, and subsequently, of the plaintiff, Smt. Kanchan Wahi. To establish the tenancy of Inder Pal Singh, the plaintiff relied on the registered rent agreement, Ex. PW1/3. PW-2 Akhil Wahi, a witness to the agreement, testified and confirmed its authenticity during his testimony. Both the plaintiff and PW-2, Akhil Wahi, were extensively cross-examined, but nothing was drawn from them to challenge the validity of the registered agreement dated 09.06.2014.
Furthermore, the executant of the agreement, Sh. Vikas Wahi, also testified as PW-3 and verified the agreement. However, the defendant failed to cross-examine him, leaving his testimony unchallenged. During cross-examination, no questions regarding the rent agreement were raised, nor were any specific suggestions made on behalf of the defendant to indicate that the agreement was false, forged, or fabricated.
VIKAS Digitally signed by
VIKAS GARG
CS No. 2393/16
GARG
Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Date: 2024.10.07 16:36:42 +0530 & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 14 of 26 Consequently, the evidence supporting the rent agreement remains uncontroverted.
The defendant merely stated in his written statement that he had not executed any such document. However, since the rent agreement is a registered document, a legal presumption of its validity is attached to it.
In light of above discussion, the plaintiff has successfully proven the existence of the rent agreement and the tenancy between Vikas Wahi HUF and the defendant.
Through document Ex. PW1/5, it was established that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff as the owner and agreed to pay rent and other charges to the plaintiff from August 2015, in accordance with the rent agreement dated 19.06.2014. By doing so, the defendant admitted the plaintiff's title over the suit property. Ex. PW1/5 was supported by the testimonies of the plaintiff (PW-1) and PW-2. PW-2, Sh. Akhil Wahi, confirmed the execution of the document and identified his signature on it. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant, but nothing was brought to light that would disprove their statements. No questions were raised regarding the attornment document dated 08.08.2015 VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG 16:36:53 +0530 Date: 2024.10.07 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 15 of 26 (Ex. PW1/5) during cross-examination, nor were any specific suggestions made by the defendant to challenge its authenticity.
In light of the evidence, it is established by a preponderance of probabilities that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff as the owner on 08.08.2015. In addition to the aforementioned documents, this fact is further corroborated by document Ex. PW1/9, wherein, upon receiving a legal notice, the defendant agreed to pay the rent and vacate the suit property in the event of non-payment. This was supported by the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, with PW-2 confirming the execution of the document and identifying his signature. Once again, cross-examination failed to discredit their testimonies, and the defendant's response in the written statement amounted to a mere denial.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to reference the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Prasad v. Mohd. Alam, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 13 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 535 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 308, wherein the Apex Court observed:
" 15. On the question of tenancy, both the trial court and the High Court have not considered the provision of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:01 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 16 of 26 Act.
"109. Rights of lessor's transferee.--If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him:
Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.
The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased."
From a perusal of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that after the transfer of lessor's right in favour of the transferee, the latter gets all rights and VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:10 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 17 of 26 liabilities of the lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy. The section does not insist that transfer will take effect only when the tenant attorns. It is well settled that a transferee of the landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the landlord's rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a notice under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by the transferor (sic transferee) landlord would be proper and so also the suit for ejectment."
In the case of Vashu Deo v. Balkishan, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 50 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 66, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"6. We now proceed to examine whether the appellant could have directly attorned to the owner Trust bypassing the respondent-tenant on 1-4-1983, relying on the event of institution of suit for eviction by the owner Trust against the respondent- tenant on 30-3-1983 and whether the said event enables successfully raising of the plea of respondent-tenant's eviction by paramount title, VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:20 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 18 of 26 bringing the obligation of the appellant sub-tenant to deliver possession over the tenancy premises to the respondent and to pay rent to him till that date. Under Section 108 clause (q) of the Transfer of Property Act, in the absence of contract or local usage to the contrary, it is an obligation of the tenant to put his lessor into possession of the property on the termination of the lease. Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which codifies the common law rule of estoppel between landlord and tenant, provides that no tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. The rule of estoppel so enacted has three main features: (i) the tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his landlord over the tenancy premises at the beginning of the tenancy; (ii) such estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenancy continues and unless the tenant has surrendered possession to the landlord; and (iii) Section 116 of the Evidence Act is not the whole law of estoppel between the landlord and tenant. The principles emerging from Section 116 can be extended in their application and also suitably adapted to suit the requirement of an individual case. Rule of estoppel which governs an owner of an immovable property and his tenant would also VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:29 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 19 of 26 mutatis mutandis govern a tenant and his sub-tenant in their relationship inter se. As held by the Privy Council in Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd. v. L.A. Creet [AIR 1933 PC 29 : 60 IA 297] and Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh [AIR 1915 PC 96 : 42 IA 202] the estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenant has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord. It follows that the rule of estoppel ceases to have applicability once the tenant has been evicted. His obligation to restore possession to his landlord is fulfilled either by actually fulfilling the obligation or by proving his landlord's title having been extinguished by his landlord's eviction by a paramount title-holder. Eviction by paramount title-holder is a good defence bringing to an end the obligation of the tenant to put the lessor in possession of the property under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act. The burden of proving eviction by title paramount lies on the party who sets up such defence."
In the present case, the tenancy between Vikas Wahi HUF and the defendant, Sh. Inder Pal Singh, has been established through the registered rent agreement dated 19.06.2014. Subsequently, as discussed earlier, the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant was also proven, and a valid attornment took place. The defendant acknowledged the Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:38 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 20 of 26 plaintiff as the owner and landlord of the suit property. As a result, under the provisions of Section 116, the defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiff's title to the property. The present suit primarily involves a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. The question of determining the plaintiff's ownership does not arise independently from the current controversy. Since the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's title at the commencement of the tenancy with her, he is now precluded from challenging her ownership.
By applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities to the facts and circumstances established by the evidence, all these issues are resolved in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant.
Issue no. 9 ( Main suit):
The defendant contends that the present suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, with the burden of proof for this issue resting on the defendant. In paragraph 12 of his written statement, the defendant claims that the plaintiff, under the guise of the present suit, is seeking a declaration of ownership rights and possession of the suit premises. However, as discussed earlier, this suit is strictly a landlord-tenant dispute, and the question of the plaintiff's ownership does not arise separately from the current issue, especially since the Digitally defendant VIKAS by VIKAS GARG signed GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:48 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 21 of 26 acknowledged the plaintiff's title at the start of the tenancy and is now barred from contesting it.
The plaintiff is required to value the relief for possession by adding 12 months' rent. The plaintiff has stated that the monthly rent was Rs. 30,000, and accordingly, the relief for possession has been valued at Rs. 3,60,000 (equivalent to 12 months' rent), for which the appropriate ad-valorem fee has been paid. The defendant has failed to discharge the burden of proof on this issue. Consequently, this issue is also decided in favor of the plaintiff.
All the Issues except Issue No. 4 (Counterclaim):
In the counterclaim, the counter claimants sought a declaration that the gift deed dated 15.07.2015, the GPA dated 27.09.2011, and the rent agreement dated 20.06.2024 were forged and fabricated. Additionally, they requested relief in the form of a permanent injunction and mandatory injunction related to above said documents of the suit property and interfering with the possession over suit property.
The counter claimants alleged that the GPA dated 27.09.2011 was executed by counterclaimant no. 2, Sh. S. Prabh Dayal Singh, as security for a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:37:59 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 22 of 26 provided by non-counterclaimant no. 2, Sh. Vikas Wahi.
According to the counter claimants, the GPA was supposed to be canceled upon repayment of the loan, which was repaid via RTGS, but the GPA was never canceled. It was further claimed that blank papers had been signed by the defendant/counterclaimant, Sh. Inder Pal Singh.
In response, the non-counter claimants contended that while Sh. Vikas Wahi did receive Rs. 10 lakhs through RTGS, this was a separate loan transaction and had no connection to the execution of the GPA.
The burden of proof for all issues, except issue no. 4, rested on the counter claimants, but they failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their claims. They could not establish that the GPA and other documents were forged or fabricated. Furthermore, during the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, as discussed above in the issues of the main suit, no facts were elicited to prove forgery or fabrication. PW-3 also testified, affirming the contents of his reply to the counterclaim in his evidentiary affidavit. The counter claimants did not cross-examine PW-3, leaving his testimony unchallenged.
In light of the above discussion, the counter claimants failed
VIKAS
Digitally signed by
VIKAS GARG
GARG Date: 2024.10.07
16:38:10 +0530
CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh
&
CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 23 of 26
to discharge the onus of proof on the issues raised. Consequently, the issues are decided in favor of the plaintiffs/non-counter claimants and against the counter claimants/defendants.
Issue no. 4 (Counterclaim):
The non-counterclaimant argued that for a suit seeking a declaration, the counter claimants are required to pay the ad- valorem court fee. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., II (2010) SLT 746.
In the present case, the counter claimants also sought a declaration regarding the gift deed also, even though neither of them was a party to that deed. Despite this, they did not pay the requisite ad-valorem court fee and merely valued the suit at Rs. 200/-.
In view of this, the issue is decided in favor of the non- counter claimant/plaintiff and against the counter claimants/defendant.
Relief (Both Main Suit and Counterclaim):-
11. In light of the above discussion, the plaintiff's suit is hereby decreed in favor of the plaintiff and against the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:38:23 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 24 of 26 defendant, while the counterclaim is dismissed on the following terms:
A. The plaintiff is entitled to recover possession from defendant Sh. Inder Pal Singh of the suit premises i.e. Ground Floor of property D-3/16, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110005 measuring area 55.73 square meters.
B. The plaintiff is also entitled to rent/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per month from 01.08.2015 until the recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant.
C. A permanent injunction is granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant from creating any third-party interest in the suit property, either directly or through an agent, in any manner.
D. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover the costs of the suit.
E. The counterclaim is hereby dismissed with costs.
12. Separate decree sheets shall be prepared for both the main suit and the counterclaim.
13. A copy of this judgment shall be retained in the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.10.07 16:38:36 +0530 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 25 of 26 counterclaim file.
14. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedVIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG Pronounced in the open court GARG 2024.10.07 16:38:43 +0530 on 07.10.2024 (Vikas Garg) District Judge-05 /EAST), KKD, Delhi/07.10.2024 CS No. 2393/16 Smt. Kanchan Wahi Vs. Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh & CS No. 12/17 Sh. S. Inder Pal Singh Vs. S. Prabh Dayal Singh Page 26 of 26