Delhi District Court
Harish Sethi vs Pradeep Chand Giri on 11 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD JOSHI
ACJM, SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
MCA SCJ 5/18
IN THE MATTER OF:
Harish Sethi S/o D R Sethi,
R/o 10, Janpath Lane, Partap Singh Building,
New Delhi.
..Objector/ Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Chand Giri (Since Deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Fakir Chand Giri
R/o 1006, Surya Mandir Tower, Judges Bunglow Road,
Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
Through
Krishan Chander Singh (Subsequent Purchaser)
S/o Bhagat Singh,
R/o B-19, Sujan Singh Park,
Subramanium Bharti Marg,
Pandara Road, New Delhi
..Decree Holder/Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.11.2016
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 21.07.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 11.11.2025
Digitally
VINOD signed by
VINOD JOSHI
JOSHI Date:
2025.11.11
17:20:32 -0800
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE DELHI AND AJMER RENT
CONTROL ACT, 1952 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
17.10.2016 PASSED BY COURT OF MS. NAMRITA AGGARWAL, Ld. CCJ-
CUM-ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN CASE
EXECUTION 56/2014 (OLD) 95935 OF 2016 (NEW) IN CASE TITLED AS
PRADEEP CHAND GIRI VERSUS SAT PARKASH MALHOTRA, ARISING
FROM SUIT NO. 439/1958 OF THE COURT OF SHRI PRAKASH CHAND
SAINI Ld. SUB JUDGE, DELHI - PLAINT PRESENTED ON 08.09.1958.
ORDER
Note:- The present judgment was reserved by the undersigned as ASCJ/JSCC/GJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, prior to the transfer to this Court.
1. The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the impugned judgement dated 17.10.2016 passed in execution of case arising from suit no 439/1958 by which the objections of the appellant were disallowed by court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, Ld. CCJ-CUM-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Factual Matrix: The decree holder/respondent being Shri Pradeep Chand Giri (hereinafter 'DH') obtained the decree for possession of suit property bearing Flat No. 10, 1st Floor, Pratap Singh Building, Janpath Lane, Delhi (hereinafter 'suit property') on 24.01.1970. Thereafter, the DH filed an execution petition for the execution of the decree of ejectment and for possession of the suit property against Judgement debtor Sh. Sat Prakash Malhotra (hereinafter "JD").
3. The appellant/ objector, Sh. Harish Sethi (hereinafter "objector") took objections and filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") on 27.04.2001, objecting to the execution of decree on the ground that the objector had rights in the suit property arising from Digitally VINOD signed by VINOD JOSHI JOSHI 2025.11.11 Date:
17:20:41 -0800 a rent agreement dated 01.04.1991, followed by an alleged Agreement to Sell dated 18.12.1995, executed between DH and the objector with respect to the suit premises. On the basis of the same, he resisted the execution of the decree.
4. A reply was submitted by the DH in which he denied the execution of any rent agreement or agreement to sell. It was submitted that the objector is a rank trespasser and has trespassed in the suit premises illegally, unauthorizedly and forcefully. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the execution proceedings the suit property was sold to Sh. K.C. Singh on 30.05.2008, who had requested the DH to continue with these proceedings to get the decree executed from the Court.
5. On the basis of the above submissions, the executing Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, Ld. CCJ-CUM-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi framed issues in the matter and thereafter gave its finding and ultimately rejected the objections filed by the objector by judgement dated 17.10.2016. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed against the impugned judgement to allow the objection of the appellant and dismiss the execution petition of the DH.
6. Impugned Judgment: After due consideration of the respective submissions of parties, the executing court rejected the objections on the following grounds. First, it was held by the court that the objector was unable to prove his tenancy. The documents filed by the objector could not be relied on and the ones relied upon, did not prove his rights on the suit property. Second, it was held by the court that the objector had gained illegal possession of the property without the DH's knowledge or consent. Therefore, he was found to be a trespasser by the court without any rights to the suit property. Third, the court also held that even if the property was sold to a third party in 2008, there was no objection by such party and therefore the execution proceedings could be continued by the DH.
Digitally VINOD signed by VINOD JOSHI JOSHI 2025.11.11 Date:
17:20:48 -0800
7. In order to arrive at the above findings, the court considered and discussed the various documents submitted and relied upon by the objector.
(a) Rent agreement dated 01.04.1991: The court considered the document but did not deem it fit to rely on the same. It observed that since the objector could not produce the original agreement, nor did he produce any attesting witness even though he knew the witnesses, the document remained unproved and could not be taken into consideration. Further, the DH had also denied the existence of such document.
(b) Agreement to sell dated 18.12.1995: The court considered the document but did not deem it fit to rely on the same. It observed that since the objector could not produce the original agreement, nor did he produce any attesting witness even though he knew the witnesses, the document remained unproved and could not be taken into consideration. Further, the DH had denied the existence of such document. Moreover, the objector did not provide any receipt or any other proof that the consideration under the agreement was paid to DH. Therefore, the document remained unproved.
(c) Original report of the Bailiff Ex. DHW1/1: The court relied on the report of Bailiff which proved that on 23.01.1990, Sh. Manoj Malhotra, who is nephew of the original JD had handed over the possession of two rooms of the suit premises to the Bailiff and remaining two were undertaken to be vacated by Sh. Manoj Malhotra by the end of April, 1990. The court did not find any infirmity with the document and relied on it to give its finding that that the possession of entire property was never handed over to DH and that keys of only two rooms were handed over to the Bailiff, which were submitted by the Bailiff to the executing court, which are attached alongwith the file.
(d) Rent receipts: The court observed that the objector had not submitted any proof of regular rent payment. Neither any receipts, nor any other proof of rent payment was produced by the objector.
Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD Date:
JOSHI JOSHI 2025.11.11 17:20:57 -0800
(e) Gas Connection and Electoral Roll: The court did not deem it fit to rely on the gas connection and electoral roll produced by the objector. It held that since these documents were computer generated, they cannot be admitted in evidence without the mandatory Certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
(f) MTNL Connection: The court held that the originals of the document were not produced. Even the witness from MTNL had failed to bring the original record to prove that the connection was installed at the suit premises in the name of the objector. Therefore, the court held that the same was not admissible in evidence.
(g) Passport record: The court held that the passport record produced by the objector did not prove ownership of the objector with respect to the suit property.
(h) NDMC Notices: The court considered the NDMC notices produced by the objector. However, it was observed that the notices did not mention anywhere that the objector was the tenant in the suit property. Further, it was also noted that the NDMC Witnesses had failed to identify the payment receipt. The court observed that the document only show the possession of the objector but such possession is not shown to be with the consent or knowledge of the DH.
Therefore, these notices were also not found to substantiate the claim on the objector.
8. Other than the above-mentioned documents, the court also considered the following evidences on record
(a) Cross-examination of the objector: It was noted by the court that the objector himself stated in his cross-examination that the intimation of receipt of demand notice and attachment of rent from NDMC to DH was oral and no written proof of the same had been filed. Further, the court also noted that as per the cross- examination, objector has admitted that he was earlier a tenant with respect to the another property bearing No.12/19, Old Rajinder Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD JOSHI Date:
JOSHI 2025.11.11 17:21:09 -0800
Nagar, New Delhi and the landlord of the said premises had filed an eviction petition against the objector in 1996, wherein, the objector had taken the similar grounds. Further, in written statement submitted by the objector in that suit, the objector had claimed that he was in possession of that property in 1996 whereas he claims to be in possession of the suit property since 1991. He does not claim that he was in carrying out any commercial activity on the suit premises. Based on the above, the court gave its finding that it is unbelievable that the objector was in possession of both properties at the same time.
(b) Examination of Sr. Assistant from the office of NDMC, New Delhi, with the original Statement of Account from Demand & Collection Register from Accounts Department OW4/1: Objector's Witness stated that the mutation of suit property in the name of the subsequent purchaser Sh. Krishan Chander Singh in the year 2008-09 and before that it was in the name of Sh. Pradeep Chand Giri.
9. After due consideration of the above-mentioned documents and evidence, the court concluded that even if it is considered that the objector was in possession of the suit property, there is nothing on record to show that the said possession was with consent of the DH. Therefore, the court held that the objector was in illegal possession and a trespasser.
10. With respect to the contention of the objector that the property was sold by DH to Sh. K.C. Singh in 2008 during pendency of the petition and therefore the execution proceedings were not maintainable. The court observed that subsequent transfer does not result in dismissal of validly instituted suit and if there is no objection from the subsequent transferee, the original party can take the matter to execution. Further, it observed that in this case, the transferee never applied for substitution. Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD JOSHI Date:
JOSHI 2025.11.11
17:21:15 -
0800
11. Appeal: Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant/ objector moved to this court by way of appeal on the following grounds. It was submitted that the judgement dated 17.10.2016 was unsustainable in law being passed against pleadings of parties. For substantiating this, the appellant has raised the following grounds as culled out from the appeal. First, the court did not consider the proper parties in the suit. Neither the fact that property was sold by DH to one Sh. KC Singh was not considered by the court, nor the death of JD in 1989 was considered. The fact that the same was not disclosed by DH was not considered by the court. It was submitted that on the basis of this sale, the execution proceedings should have been dismissed. Second, it was submitted that the written submissions of the appellant were not considered by the court. Third, it was averred that the Court did not consider that objector was a tenant in the suit property which was also allegedly admitted by the DH in his cross-examination. Forth, it was submitted that certain proved documents were also not considered by the court. It was submitted that only the passport was considered by the court and other documents were disregarded. Further, it was submitted that court did not consider that the DH intentionally withheld the rent agreement and agreement to sale from the court. Fifth, it was submitted that the court did not consider the admissions made by the DH in his cross-examination. It was submitted that the DH admitted the amount, day, date and year in the NDMC receipts and therefore the DH had knowledge of said attachment and he never objected to the same. Further, it was not considered that DH admitted that the Ground Floor of the said property was given to one tenant and other floor was given to objector and therefore he received the NDMC rent attachment notice. Further, the admission that one out of two keys was deposited with the court and other was with the DH was not considered by the court. Sixth, it was submitted that the DH had not been able to prove trespass by the objector. It was stated that he had knowledge about the possession by the tenant as the elder brother of the DH was owner of the adjacent house. Further, it was also submitted that the DH made no complaint against the objector despite Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD JOSHI Date:
JOSHI 2025.11.11 17:21:22 -0800
knowing that he was in possession of the property. Further, it was stated that the DH did not mention the time and date of trespass.
12. Written submissions were filed by the respondent in response to the appeal, where he contested the above-mentioned ground taken by the appellant.
13. Oral arguments were advanced by both sides on the appeal wherein the parties re- iterated their submissions. Written Submissions also relied on by the parties.
14. Arguments of parties heard. Documents perused. Contentions considered.
15. Reasoning and Findings: This court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Ld. Executing court. The grounds taken in the appeal that the executing court did not consider the documents and evidence is unfounded. Not only have all the documents been duly considered by the court but the reasoning provided for their inadmissibility is also sound.
16. Further, the court is also unable to accept the submission made by the objector that the DH had made an admission with respect to tenancy of the objector which was ignored by the court. The relevant excerpt of the cross- examination is reproduced below.
"It is correct that NDMC attached the rent from the tenants. Vol. NDMC had given notice of attachment to only one tenant out of the two tenants. It is correct that rent of Rs. 150/- was deposited on 01.06.1994 by Sh. Harish Sethi, Rs. 150/- was deposited on 08.07.1994, Rs. 450/- was deposited on 05.10.1994 and Rs. 750/- was deposited on 09.03.1995, Rs. 900/- was deposited on 27.09.1995 and Rs. 450/- was deposited on 08.12.1995 and thereafter, on 01.04.1996, NDMC withdraw the said notice. Vol. Since the said notice was wrongfully served by NDMC, the amounts deposited Harish Sethi as stated above was adjusted by NDMC against the tax as the same was wrongly Digitally VINOD signed by VINOD JOSHI JOSHI 2025.11.11 Date:
17:21:48 -0800 deposited by me as I have already deposited the tax. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Harish Sethi is my tenant. I don't even recognise him. I do not know the date on which Sh. Harish Sethi entered into the premises but I called him trespasser in my affidavit since I do not know him and without my permission he entered into my premises."
On perusal of the cross- examination in its entirety, it cannot be said that the DH had admitted that the objector was the lawful tenant in the suit property. In-fact he states that the notice was wrongfully issued by NDMC. Although the notice (Ex. OW 5/6) issued by NDMC addresses the objector as tenant, however, it nowhere specifically states the objector to be a lawful tenant of the DH. The purpose of such notice was deposition of the arrears of house tax. Even if DH admits to such issuance of notice to the objector by NDMC, the same is not enough to prove a legally created tenancy between the parties. Moreover, it is not shown that the DH had admitted the objector to be his tenant before the authorities. It cannot be said that DH has admitted the objector to be his tenant or that such record discharges the burden of the objector to prove the rent agreement allegedly executed between the parties as per law.
17. Further, with respect to the ground taken by the appellant that the DH had knowledge of tenancy as his elder brother owned the property adjacent to the suit property, this court is not convinced that merely the ownership of property adjacent to suit property by the brother of DH can attribute knowledge on part of DH. Especially it is also submitted by the DH that he never got a chance to visit that property. DH has duly deposed that after the deposition of keys in the court, he went to Ahmadabad to attend to his ailing brother, who was undergoing dialysis and after he expired in the year 1991, DH was under mental duress and had to take care of family affairs being the sole surviving son. DH also deposed that he became a heart patient and there was nobody to pursue execution petition and he also shifted to Shimla to look after part of the family business. The objector has not brought any evidence to the show that the DH was in Delhi and Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD JOSHI JOSHI 2025.11.11 Date:
17:21:56 -0800 had taken the possession of the entire suit premises, contrary to his testimony or that such premises were handed over to the objector by the DH under a valid rent agreement.
18. Further, with respect to the suit property being sold by the DH to Sh. K.C. Singh during the pendency of the suit, this court find that the questions such as whether the DH had revealed the said sale to the court, whether Sh. K.C. Singh had asked the DH to continue the proceedings or not, is immaterial for determining the right of the DH to continue the proceedings. The executing court has correctly relied on the case law of "Mohini Syal Vs. Kushal Kumar", CCP No 49 of 1980 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 22.10.2980, wherein it was held that if the transferee of the suit property does not apply for his substitution, the DH has right to continue with execution proceedings. Therefore, the court does not find merit in this ground either.
19. It has been also submitted that the DH has failed to state as to when the objector had trespassed into the suit property. It has been the case of the DH that the objector is a rank trespasser and has occupied the suit property without his knowledge. Once the objector alleges that he is a lawful tenant under a rent agreement, it was for the objector to prove such rent agreement as per law and to show that he is not a trespasser and therefore, not bound by the decree. The proof of such rent agreement becomes more crucial to the case of the objector as it has been admitted by the objector that he was a tenant in the property bearing no. 12/19, Old Rajinder Nagar during the alleged period. Objector admits that he entered into property bearing no. 12/19, Old Rajinder Nagar, as a tenant in the year 1985 and he also contested the suit for possession filed by the owner in the year 1996 against such property, by asserting that he was still in possession of the same as a tenant.
Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2025.11.11 17:22:05 -0800
20. Based on the above reasonings, this court is unable to find any merit in grounds taken in appeal. The court finds no reason to interfere with judgement passed by executing Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, Ld. CCJ-CUM-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dated 17.10.2016, which dismissed the objections of the objector. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
21. Copy of this order be placed before the Ld. Executing court along with the TCR.
22. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VINOD VINOD JOSHI
Date:
JOSHI 2025.11.11
17:22:11 -
0800
(Vinod Joshi)
ACJM (South-East) Saket Courts,
New Delhi /11.11.2025