Delhi District Court
Ram Kishan Aggarwal vs Deepak Bedi on 5 January, 2024
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
IN THE COURT OF SH. ALOK SHUKLA,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE - 07, (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
(since transferred vide Order no. 50/D3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2023 dt. 14.12.2023)
CNR NO.:- DLCT01-000432-2011
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016
CS NO.:- 202/2020
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Sh. Ram Kishan Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. N.L. Aggarwal,
R/o AC-102A,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Deepak Bedi
S/o Sh. S.S. Bedi,
R/o 73-B, Gulabi Bagh,
DDA Flats, Delhi. .... Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION & RECOVERY
OF ARREAR OF RENT FROM OCTOBER 2008 TILL
SEPTEMBER 2011 i.e. RS. 1,93,000/- AND FURTHER
TILL DISPOSAL OF THE CASE ALONGWITH THE
INTEREST OF 18% P.A. TILL ITS REALISATION
ALONGWITH ELECTRICITY, WATER AND OTHER
CHARGES.
Date of institution of the Suit : 27.09.20211
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 18.12.2023
Date of Judgment : 05.01.2024
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of
possession & recovery of arrear of rent from October 2008 till
September 2011 i.e., Rs. 1,93,000/- and further till disposal of the
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 1 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
case alongwith the interest of 18% P.A. till its realization
alongwith electricity, water and other charges.
2. Succinctly, the facts, as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint,
are as under: -
(i) The plaintiff is law abiding senior citizen of India
aged 70 yrs. and has faith in the administration of
justice and being aggrieved facts and action on the
part of the defendant, they are being compelled to
approach this Hon'ble Court by the virtue of this
present suit. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of
the suit premises FLAT NO. 73-B, GULABI
BAGH, DDA FLATS, DELHI (hereinafter called
the suit property). The defendant approached the
plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to give the suit
property to him on rent basis as the plaintiff acceded
to the request of the defendant and agreed to give
the suit property to the defendant on rent and
according the tenancy was commenced w.e.f.
01.09.2004 at an agreed rent of Rs. 3,500/-
excluding water and electricity charges with an
increase in rent @ 10% per annum with details
below:
From To Rent (Rs)/per
month
01.09.2004 31.08.2005 3,500/-
01.09.2005 31.08.2006 3,850/-
01.09.2006 31.08.2007 4,235/-
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 2 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
01.09.2007 31.08.2008 4,658/-
01.09.2008 31.08.2009 5,123/-
01.09.2009 31.08.2010 5,635/-
01.09.2010 31.08.2011 6,198/-
(ii) And the present rate of rent is Rs. 6,818/- per month
w.e.f. 01.09.2011 with an increase in rent @ 10%
per month.
The rent due from 01.11.2008 to 31.08.2009 Rs.
51,230/-.
The rent due from 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2010 Rs.
67,620/-.
The rent due from 01.09.2010 to 30.09.2011 Rs.
74,376/- total Amount Rs. 1,93,000/-.
(iii) The defendant paid the rent till October 2008 but
thereafter the defendant did not pay even a single
penny towards the rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
made repeated request and approaches to the
defendant but the defendant kept on gaining time on
one pretext or the other. Thereafter the plaintiff kept
on making repeated request and approaches to the
defendant but the defendant kept on gaining time on
one pretext or the other but all in vain and finding
no option the plaintiff requested the defendant to
vacate the tented premise. The defendant did not
make any payment of the rent despite several
request made by the plaintiff; the plaintiff requested
the defendant to vacate the tenanted premises. In
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 3 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
spite of the same, the defendant did not vacate the
suit property and kept on making false promises to
vacate the same at the earliest and when the plaintiff
again approached the defendant on 10.08.2011 and
again requested to vacate the suit premises, the
defendant flatly refused to vacate the same.
(iv) The matter was somehow settled and the defendant
assured to vacate the suit property latest by
25.05.2011 and the plaintiff agreed for the same.
Again, on 25.06.2011, the plaintiff approached the
defendant and requested the defendant to vacate the
suit property as per his commitment but the
defendant again refused to vacate the same and did
not vacate the suit property till date. The plaintiff
again approached the officials of the concerned P.S.
but the police officials did not take any action and
further suggested the plaintiff to approach the
Hon'ble Court as this is a Civil Matter. The plaintiff
was left with no other alternative but to send a legal
notice to the defendant on 26.08.2011 through his
counsel calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit
premises. The said legal notice was duly served to
the defendant but in spite the same, the defendant
did not comply with the terms of the said notice.
(v) It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff in the
owner of the tenanted premises and the defendant
had not paid any rent since October 2008 or the
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 4 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
electricity and other charges and as such the plaintiff
being the owner of the said property has every right
to get the same vacated from the defendant. Since
then, the plaintiff is regularly approaching the
defendant for vacating the said tenanted premises
but the defendant is adamant on not vacating the
said premises and to maintain an illegal possession
on the said tenanted premises of plaintiff. The
plaintiff is under the threat being deprived from the
legal possession of the suit property by the hands of
the defendant who is having an intention to maintain
the illegal intention and deprive the plaintiff from
the legal possession of the suit property due to the
acts, action and mis-deeds of the defendant.
(vi) The cause of action has arisen for filing the plaint
when the defendant after October 2008 stopped
paying the rent to the plaintiff. It further arose when
the defendant in spite of repeated request failed to
vacate the suit property and it further arose on
10.08.2011 when the defendant gave an assured to
vacate the suit property by 25.06.2011 but failed to
fulfill his commitment and did not vacate the suit
property. It further arose on 26.08.2011 when a legal
notice was served to the defendant but he did not
comply with the terms of the legal notice and did
not vacate the tenanted premises / suit property. The
cause of action is still continuing as the plaintiff is
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 5 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
still maintaining the illegal possession on the suit
premises. The property in question is situated in
Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court
and the defendant is residing & working for gain at
Delhi, hence the present suit can be tried by this
Hon'ble Court.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant.
Defendant appeared and filed written statement.
CASE OF DEFENDANT AS PER WRITTEN
STATEMENT
4. Succinctly, the case of defendants is as under:
(i) The present suit of the Plaintiff is nothing
but gross misuse of process of law and same is
without cause of action and liable to be dismissed
with cost under order VII rule 11 CPC. The
Plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit
against the Defendant as the Plaintiff is not the
owner nor property and related with the site plan
suit filed alongwith the plaint is incorrect and the
Plaintiff has filed the forged documents like GPA,
agreement to sell, SPA, receipt and will all dated
08.11.1993 and there is no sale deed nor the
Plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit
property. The abovesaid documents are forged and
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 6 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
the Plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted for filing of
false and forged documents before this Hon'ble
Court under the provisions of 340 Cr.P.C. The suit
of the Plaintiff against the Defendant is based on
totally false and fabricated story, even nothing has
been filed with the suit.
(ii) The suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable
as the Plaintiff has not valued the suit in
accordance with the market value of the suit
property as the value of Rs.22 lacs and the
Plaintiff has not valued the suit properly and
appropriate court fees has not been affixed on the
plaint and due to the pecuniary jurisdiction, the
Hon'ble Court ceased the jurisdiction. There is no
relationship of the landlord and tenant between the
parties.
(iii) Sardar Bhagwant Singh S/o Sardar Mool
Singh was the original owner/ allottee of the suit
property i.e. flat No.73B, Gulabi Badh, Delhi
which was allotted to him from DDA and he was
in possession of the said flat and on 04.04.1998
Sh. Bhagwant Singh intended to sell the abovesaid
flat i.e. suit property to the Defendant and it was
agreed to sell in sum of Rs.3,20,000/- and a sum of
Rs.2,20,000/- was given to Sardar Bhagwant
Singh by the Defendant and Sh. Bhagwant Singh
issued a bayana receipt on 04.04.1998 and
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 7 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
physical and vacant possession of the suit property
was handed over to the defendant alongwith the
photocopy of the documents of the suit property
and till then the Defendant is residing
uninterrupted in the suit property. On 04.04.1998,
between the it was agreed mutually between the
Defendant and Sardar Bhagwant Singh that the
balance amount of Rs.1 lac shall be paid to him by
the Defendant upto 04.10.1998 and Sardar
Bhagwant Singh shall execute the title documents
in the name of the Defendant after obtaining NOC
from DDA and other department. It was
categorically mentioned that in case the Defendant
failed to make the payment upto 04.10.1998 then
the bayana agreement shall be cancelled and the
possession of the flat shall be taken back from the
Defendant and in the event of failure on the part of
Sardar Bhagwant Singh the Defendant can seek
the assistant of the court of law. It was further
mentioned that Sardar Bhagwant Singh had not
executed any kind of GPA, SPA or agreement and
stated that if anybody claim regarding the same
then the same shall be deemed as null and void
and thereafter, Sardar Bhagwant Singh was not
traceable and the Defendant regularly searching
him for the payment of balance amount and
execution of sale deed/sale documents in his
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 8 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
favour, since Sardar Bhagwant Singh was not
available anywhere so sale documents could not
be executed and the balance amount of Rs.1 lac
was not paid for the same. It is pertinent to
mention here that since Sardar Bhagwant Singh
was not traceable so the Defendant was unable to
file any suit for specific performance for the same
and by virtue of adverse possession also, the
Plaintiff became the owner of the suit property as
his possession is interrupted since 04.04.1998. The
Defendant was never inducted as a tenant by Sh.
Bhagwant Singh or the alleged Plaintiff.
(iv) Since 04.04.1998 the Defendant is in
uninterrupted exclusive possession of the suit
property so the claim and alleged documents of the
Plaintiff are false and forged and liable to be
rejected at once. The Plaintiff has not verified the
plaint in accordance with order 6 rule 15 of CPC,
hence the same is liable to be rejected.
REPLICATION
5. The plaintiff filed the replication and reiterated all the
averments made in the plaint.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were
framed on 07.02.2013:
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 9 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of
possession of suit property i.e. Flat no. 73-B, Gulabi
Bagh, DDA Flats, Delhi as prayed for? OPP
(ii). Whether the plaintiff entitled for recovery of
arrears of rent for the period from October, 2008 to
September, 2011 totaling to Rs.1,93,000/- and
further till disposal of the present case as prayed
for? OPP
(iii). If so, whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so
at what rate and for what period? OPD
(iv). Whether plaintiff is entitled for electricity, water
charges alongwith penalties as prayed for? OPP
(v). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages and
compensation as prayed for? OPP
(vi). Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPP
(vii). Whether there is no relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties? OPD
(viii). Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 and also relied upon the
following documents:
(i). The site plan of suit property is Ex. PW-1/A
(objected to mode of proof).
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 10 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
(ii). Legal notice dated 26.08.2011 is Ex. PW-1/B
(objected to mode of proof being office copy).
(iii). The postal receipt of said legal notice is Ex. PW-
1/B1 (objected to mode of proof).
(iv). Original GPA dated 08.11.1993 is Ex. PW-1/C
(objected to for later production of original of same as
photocopy was filed earlier).
(v). The original agreement to sell and purchase dated
08.11.1993 is Ex. PW-1/D (objected to for later production
of original of same as photocopy was filed earlier).
(vi). The original SPA dated 08.11.1993 is Ex. PW-1/E
(objected to for later production of original of same as
photocopy was filed earlier).
(vii). The original receipt dated 08.11.1993 is Ex. PW-1/F
(objected to for later production of original of same as
photocopy was filed earlier).
(viii). The original Will dated 08.11.1993 is Ex. PW-1/G
(objected to for later production of original of same as
photocopy was filed earlier).
(ix). Photocopy of the demand draft drawn on Canara
Bank is marked as Mark PW-1/H.
(x). The original area statement of the suit property
prepared by Sh. Ashish Taneja, Architect on 20.09.2004 is
Ex. PW-1/I (objected to the mode of proof).
(xi). The original electricity bill of suit property as
payable on 24.08.2012 issued by TATA Power Delhi
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 11 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
Distribution Ltd. is Ex. PW-1/J (objected to the mode of
proof as same is photocopy).
(xii). The original bill raised by DJB on 10.11.2010 in the
name of plaintiff, is Ex. PW-1/K (objected to the mode of
proof as well as out of pleading).
(xiii). The original Ration Card issued in favor of Sh.
Bhagwant Singh, is Ex. PW-1/L (objected to for later
production of original of same as photocopy was filed
earlier).
(xiv). Original bills of MTNL bearing address of the suit
property, are Ex. PW-1/M (colly) (objected to the mode of
proof and later production).
(xv). The invoice issued by Vinayak Automobiles against
a scooter purchased by Sharan Aggarwal is Ex. PW-1/N.
The Challan receipt issued by Delhi Traffic Police is Ex.
PW-1/N1 (both are objected to the mode of proof as well
as out of pleadings and later production).
(xvi). The invoice issued by M/s Nayyar Television Pvt.
Ltd. for purchase of Fridge is Ex. PW-1/O. Letter issued by
Citi Financial Retails Services India Ltd. is Ex. PW-1/O1
(both are objected to the mode of proof as well as out of
pleadings and later production).
(xvii).The original cheque bearing no. 445421 dated
26.04.2007, cheque returning memo, death certificates of
Kartar Kaur and Bhagwant Singh are Ex. PW-1/P1, Ex. P1
(objected to as not mentioned in the affidavit), Ex. PW-1/Q
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 12 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
and Ex. PW-1/Q1 (both documents are not mentioned in
the affidavit) respectively.
8. Plaintiff also relied upon the following documents
(permitted by the court on the application dated 25.09.2013):
1. Copy of RTI application to PRO MTNL is Mark A.
2. Copy of reply dated 07.04.2012 is Ex. PW-1/R1
(OSR).
3. Copy of letter dated 02.02.2012 is Ex. PW-1/S
(OSR).
4. Copy of letter dated 17.01.2012 is Mark PW-1/S1.
5. Copy of RTI application dated 26.08.2013 is Ex.
PW-1/S2 (OSR).
6. Copy of reply dated 16.09.2013 is Mark PW-1/T1.
Thereafter, Plaintiff/PW-1 was cross-examined and
discharged.
9. Thereafter, plaintiff examined summoned witnesses Sh.
S.S. Negi, Assistant Accountant, Tata Power Delhi Distribution
Ltd. as PW-2; Sh. Birender Kumar, SWO Oriental Bank of
Commerce as PW-3; Sh. Ojendra Kumar Singh, SWO,
Corporation Bank as PW-4; Sh. Surender Kumar, Record Clerk,
Sheikh Sarai Authority as PW-5; Sh. Santoshi Lal, LDC,
Transport Authority as PW-6; Sh. Idrish Ahmed, Sr. Manager
(Admn.), MTNL as PW-7; Sh. Satbir Singh, AERO, Assembly
Constitutency No. 18, Model Town, Arya Bhatt Polytechnic
Complex as PW-8; Sh. Sita Ram, SS(O), MTNL as PW-9 and Sh.
Surya Prakash, Record Keeper from the office of Sub-Registrar-I
as PW-10. They all were cross-examined and discharged.
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 13 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
10. Plaintiff examined PW-11 who proved site plan already
exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. Plaintiff examined PW-12 from
Election Office, who produced the record pertaining to reply
dated 11.03.2016, 02.05.2016 and 01.03.2016 to the RTI
applications filed by Sh. R.K. Aggarwal, r/o AC-102 A, Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi. Copies of the said RTI application/reply dated
02.05.2016 is Ex. PW12/A (colly) (running into 12 pages)
(OSR). The copies of the said RTI applications/replies dated
11.03.2016 and 01.03.2016 are Ex. PW-12/B (colly) (running
into 14 pages) (OSR). (objected to mode of proof of document as
per the originals). Plaintiff examined PW-13 Rajesh Gupta,
PRIP, Malka Ganj, Post Office, who produced the record
pertaining to the record of complaint no. 110700-25667 and
acknowledgment no. RD061153813IN on 26.08.2011 is weeded
out. However, the status of the complaint is available in the
Customer Care Portal and print out of the same is Ex. PW-13/A.
The letter of weeding out is Ex. PW-13/B. Plaintiff examined Sh.
Amitabh Sharma, Relationship Manager, ICICI Bank as PW-14,
who produced the record pertaining to the record i.e., car loan
account statement of Mr. Deepak Bedi against Maruti Omni
maintained with the bank in ordinary course of business. The
loan agreement was dated 06.10.2001 and this account was
closed on 10.06.2004. The loan account statement is Ex.PW14/A
running into 4 pages. The repayment schedule for the said
account is Ex.PW14/B running into 3 pages. Certificate U/s 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to the aforesaid
documents is Ex.PW14/C.
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 14 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
11. Plaintiff further examined Sh. Syed Faisal Huda as PW-15.
He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-15/A.
He replied upon the documents i.e. his report U/s 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act wherein he had analyzed the handwriting/
signatures on the disputed document 'bayana receipt dated
04.04.1998 Mark-D1, with the admitted signatures on documents
GPA already Ex.PW1/C, SPA already Ex.PW1/E, Receipt already
Ex.PW1/F and Will already Ex.PW1/G. His report running into
16 pages is Ex.PW15/1. His report contains the particulars of his
qualifications and expertise on page 1, the details of examination
are contained on pages 2 to 9 (typed page no.1 to 8), my opinion
on page 9 (typed page no.8), photographs of the aforesaid
documents from pages 10 to 15, and a CD containing the said
photographs on page 16. On the basis of the detailed examination
of the documents as mentioned in his report Ex.PW15/1, he is of
the definite opinion that the disputed signatures Mark-D1 is
forged signature and it has not been put by the actual writer
'Bhagwant Singh' who has written the admitted signatures on
Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G, and the same
has been mentioned in his aforesaid report.
12. Plaintiff further examined Sh.D.P. Singh as PW-16. He
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-16/A. He
replied upon the documents already Ex. PW-1/C, Ex. PW-1/E
and Ex. PW-1/G.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDE NCE
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 15 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
13. The defendant has examined himself as DW-1, who relied
upon evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and also relied
upon the following documents:
(i). Bayana receipt dated 4/4/1998 ExDW1/1 (objected
to mode of proof).
(ii) Income tax record (Saral) ExDW1/2 (Objected to
mode of proof).
(iii) Cover note dated 23/6/2003, ExDW1/3 (objected to
mode of proof).
(iv) Progress report of the son of the defendant
ExDW1/4 (objected to mode of proof).
(v) Booklet of washing machine purchased by defendant
on 3/3/2002 ExDW1/5 (Objected to mode of proof).
(vi) Guarantee card dated 9/3/2003 issued by Kataria
Sales Coporation, ExDW1/6 (objected to mode of proof).
(vii) Site plan of the suit property ExDW1/7 (objected to
mode of proof).
14. Defendant examined Sh. Vinod Kumar, Administrative
Officer with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as DW-2, who
produced certified true copy of policy bearing no. 2004/197
which was issued in the name of Sh. Deepak Bedi on 23/06/2003.
The copy of the said policy is ExDW2/1 (objection to the mode
of proof). Defendant further examined Sh. Shamim Alam MTS,
Income Tax Office as DW-3, who produced summoned record
pertaining to the ITR of PAN no. ACTPB4039R filed by Sh.
Deepak Bedi s/o Sh. S.S. Bedi r/o 73-B, Ist floor, DDA flats,
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 16 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi for the financial year 2003-04. The attested
copy of the record of the said ITR along with covering letter is
ExDW3/1 colly. (9 pages) (Objected to mode of proof).
15. Defendant further examined Sh. Yad Ram, Peon-Daftari
o/o Record Room, C Block, Basement, DDA, INA Vikas Sadan,
as DW-4, who has not brought the summoned record of file no.
74(32) 83/LIG in respect of the property bearing no. 73B, DDA
Flat, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi 110007 as the same has been misplaced.
16. Defendant further examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar, SSA, LAB
Housing, LIG DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, who submitted that
despite best efforts records summoned could not be traced. The
records are kept in the record room under the supervision of
Daftari /Record Keeper, C- Block, Basement, Vikas Sadan, INA,
Delhi.
17. Defendant examined Sh. Yashpal Singh, Senior Officer,
o/o TPDDL, CRD Bhargarh office, as DW-5, who produced the
following summoned record:-
(i) The copy of the receipts of installation of connection
dated 13/05/1986 is ExDW5/1. (OSR) (objected to mode
of proof).
(ii) Copy of certificate of the DDA having the original
signatures at back side at point A is marked as mark DX.
(OSR) (objected to mode of proof)
(iii) Copy of the allotment letter issued by DDA having the
original signatures of the allottee Sh. Bhagwant Singh at
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 17 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
point B is marked as mark DY. (OSR) (objected to mode of
proof).
(iv) Copy of the possession letter having the original
signature of Sh. Bhagwant Singh at back side at point C is
marked as Mark DZ. (OSR) (objected to mode of proof).
(v) Application for connection of the aforesaid electricity
connection filed by Sh. Bhagwant Singh dated NII. having
the signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh at point D is
ExDW5/2. (OSR) (objected to mode of proof).
18. Defendant examined Ms. Poonam Saini as DW-6. She
relied upon her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-6/A and
also replied upon following documents: -
(i) Report Ex.DW6/1 (running 18 pages).
(ii) Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act Ex.DW6/2 (two pages).
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has objected to mode of
proof of Ex.DW6/1 and Ex.DW6/2.
19. I have heard the counsels for parties and gone through the
record carefully.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
(vi). Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPP &
(vii). Whether there is no relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties? OPD
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 18 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
20. I deem it fit to decide issue no. (vi) and (vii) before delving
into other issues as both these issues forms the substratum of
dispute between the parties to the present lis. The present suit is
predicated on the claim of the plaintiff as the owner and landlord
of the suit property, which claim has been disputed by the
defendant. Both the parties have led evidences and relied upon
documents allegedly executed by the erstwhile owner in their
favors. Both parties examined handwriting experts, who had
deposed in favor of the parties examining them. The Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khursheed ,
2018 SCC OnLine Del 10347 observed that when there are two
diametrically contradictory opinions of handwriting experts, and
both the opinions are well reasoned, in such a situation the court
would critically examine the basis, reasoning, approach and
experience of the expert to come to a conclusion as to which of
the two reports can be safely relied upon by the court. Before
embarking upon such an inquiry, it is desirable to refer to the
evidence led by both the parties in support of their claims and to
examine their respective claims on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities.
The erstwhile owner of suit property, Late Sardar
Bhagwant Singh and his wife Late Smt. Kartar Kaur have already
died. Plaintiff has claimed to be the owner of the suit property on
the basis of following documents:
Ex. No. Descriptio Witness examined to prove the
n of Document
Document
Ex.PW-1/C Original PW1 - Plaintiff.
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 19 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
GPA dated PW10- Record Keeper from the
08.11.1993 office of Sub-Registrar - I,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi -06.
PW16- Drafted the document and
witnessed the same.
Ex.PW-1/D Original PW1 - Plaintiff
Agreement
to sale dated
08.11.1993
Ex.PW-1/E Original PW1 - Plaintiff
SPA dated
08.11.1993 PW10- Record Keeper from the
office of Sub-Registrar - I,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi -06
PW16- Drafted the document and
witnessed the same.
Ex.PW-1/F Original PW1 - Plaintiff
Receipt
dated
08.11.1993
Ex.PW-1/G Original PW1 - Plaintiff
Will dated
08.11.1993 PW10- Record Keeper from the
office of Sub-Registrar - I,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi -06
PW16- Drafted the document and
witnessed the same.
21. Defendant objected to the exhibiting of Ex.PW-1/C to
Ex.PW-1/G for later production of original as photocopies were
filed earlier. The Originals of Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/G were
produced by the plaintiff at the time of tendering his evidence,
while photocopies were filed alongwith the list of documents,
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 20 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
thus the objection of the defendant is meritless and is rejected.
Defendant also objected to the signatures on Ex.PW-1/G as to
mode of proof. The objection is meritless as the document
Ex.PW-1/G is the original registered will, which is required to be
proved by the plaintiff as per law. The Hon'ble High Court vide
order dated 17.11.2023 passed in CM (M) 1882 of 2023 directed
the plaintiff to produce original allotment letter, possession letter
etc. issued by DDA to enable this Court to compare the signature
of Late Sh. Bhagwant Singh on the said document with the
Bayana receipt relied upon by the defendant. The plaintiff in
compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court
produced the original documents issued by the DDA in favor of
Late Sh. Bhagwant Singh. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill , (2021) 15 SCC 300 observed
as under:
33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the courts
below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The
record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We
are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a
document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered,
as held by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal [Prem
Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353] . The relevant portion of
the said decision reads as below : (SCC pp. 360-61, para 27)
"27. There is a presumption that a registered
document is validly executed. A registered document,
therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of
proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to
rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1
has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
(emphasis supplied) CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 21 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi In view thereof, in the present cases, the initial onus was on the plaintiff, who had challenged the stated registered document.
34. Be that as it may, before examining whether the plaintiff discharged that onus and thus shifted it on the defendants, we may take note of procedure prescribed for proof of execution of document. In this regard, we refer to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the 1872 Act"). The same is reproduced hereunder:
"68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.--If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Documents Ex.PW-1/C, PW-1/E and PW-1/G are registered documents and their registration is duly proved from record produced by PW10 from the office of Sub-Registrar. PW16 who drafted Ex.PW-1/C, PW-1/E and PW-1/G and is also an attesting witness have also deposed in favor of authenticity of these documents and identified his signatures on these documents as witness to the execution of these documents. PW16 further deposed that Late Sardar Bhagwant Singh signed Will Ex. PW-
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 22 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi 1/G on 08.11.1993 at the office of Sub-Registrar in his presence at point A and affixed his thumb impression at point A1 in his presence and in the presence of Smt. Kartar Kaur. Thereafter Ex.PW-1/G was signed by Smt. Kartar Kaur as witness at point B and she affixed her thumb at point B1. PW16 further deposed that he signed Ex.PW-1/G at point C. PW16 testified that at the time of execution of Will Ex.PW-1/G, Sh. Bhagwant Singh was in a sound and disposing state of mind and was not under any undue threat, pressure of coercion. During his cross-examination, this witness maintained that Sh. Bhagwant Singh executed Ex.PW1/C, Ex. PW1/E and Ex.PW1/G in his presence. The testimony of PW16 is consistent and during his cross- examination, the witness maintained that Sh. Bhagwant Singh signed Ex. PW-1/C, Ex. PW-1/E and Ex.PW-1/G in his presence. Plaintiff deposed as PW1. PW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/G are forged and fabricated and the same was never executed by Sh. Bhagwant Singh. The original allotment letter, payment receipt, offer of possession issued by DDA to Late Sh. Bhagwant Singh were also in possession of the plaintiff, which have been produced by the plaintiff pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Defendant has disputed the genuineness of Ex.PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/G and has given a suggestion to the plaintiff who was examined as PW1 that Ex.PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/G are forged and fabricated and the same was never executed by Sh. Bhagwant Singh, which suggestion has been denied by the plaintiff. It is noteworthy that defendant has examined the handwriting expert as DW6, CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 23 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi however in the report of the handwriting expert, which is Ex.DW6/1 (18 Pages), the signatures of Late Shri Bhagwant Singh on Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/G has not been compared by the handwriting expert examined by the defendant with the admitted signatures of Late Shri Bhagwant Singh. Accordingly, documents Ex.PW-1/C to Ex.PW-1/G are duly proved by the plaintiff.
23. Plaintiff has also relied upon the following documents to show that he has been in possession of the suit property and the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is that of landlord and tenant:
Ex. No. Description Witness examined to prove of Document the Document Ex.PW-1/1 Area PW1 - Plaintiff.
Statement of
Suit property
allegedly
signed by
Defendant
Ex.PW-1/JElectricity PW1 - Plaintiff
Bill of the
& Ex.PW- suit property PW2 - Assistant Accountant,
2/1 payable on TPDDL brought the summoned
24.08.2012 record to show that electricity
connection is name of the
plaintiff.
Ex.PW-1/L Ration Card PW1 - Plaintiff
in name of
Sh. Bhagwant
Singh
Ex.PW-1/M MTNL Bills PW1 - Plaintiff (colly) in the name CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 24 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi Ex.PW-9/1 of the son of PW9- SS(O) MTNL brought the plaintiff summoned record Ex.PW-9/1 bearing the and deposed on the basis of address of the record that the phone no.
suit property. 23682895 in the name of Prashant Aggarwal was installed on 22-07-2000 at the suit property.
Mark A & RTI PW1 - Plaintiff relied upon
Ex.PW1/R1 Application Mark A and Ex.PW1/R1 to
to PRO contend that Shri S.C. Jaiswal
MTNL & its was a tenant in the suit property
reply in the year 2002 and telephone
respectively connection was installed in his
name at the suit property.
PW7 - Sr. Manager, MTNL
brought the summoned record
and deposed on the basis of
record that Ex.PW/R1 was sent
by MTNL and the telephone no.
011-23656262 was installed in
the suit property in the name of
Shri S.C. Jaiswal.
Ex.PW- RTI PW1 - Plaintiff relied upon
1/S2 & Application Ex.PW-1/S2 and Mark PW-1/T1
Mark PW- dated to show that defendant's
1/T1 26.08.2013 residential address in the year
and reply 2001 was 313/13E, A-38, Gali
dated Bank Wali, Inderlok, Jakaria,
16.09.2013 Delhi-110007. Mark PW-1/T1 is the RTI Reply from Transport department which state that the Vehicle bearing registration no.
DL3CR7490 Yr of Mnf. 2001, Make Maruti India Pvt. Ltd. is registered in the name of Deepak Bedi, R/o 313/13E, A-
38, Gali Bank Wali, Inderlok, CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 25 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi Jakaria, Delhi-110007.
Ex.PW5/1 Vehicle Record Clerk, Transport Dept. Particulars- brought the summoned record State i.e. the particulars of Vehicle Transport bearing registration no.
Authority. DL3CR7490 Ex.PW5/1, which shows that the vehicle is registered in the name of Deepak Bedi, R/o 313/13E, A-
38, Gali Bank Wali, Inderlok, Jakaria, Delhi-110007.
Ex.PW-1/Q Death PW1 - Plaintiff.
Certificates of
& Ex.PW- Kartar Kaur
1/Q and Sh.
Bhagwant
Singh
respectively
Ex.PW- Cheque PW1 - Plaintiff.
1/P1 bearing no.
445421 dated
26.04.2007
issued by the
Defendant in
favor of
Manish
Agarwal, son
of plaintiff
Ex. P1 Cheque PW1 - Plaintiff.
returning
memo dated
28.04.2007
Ex.PW-1/N Invoice PW1 - Plaintiff.
issued by
Vinayak
Automobile
in the name
of the
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 26 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
plaintiff's
wife for
purchase of
scooter
Vehicle
Particulars-
Ex.PW-6/1 Transport PW6 - LDC, Transport
& Ex.PW- Dept. & Authority brought the summon
6/2 Insurance record and vehicle
Policy particulars/insurance policy
shows that scooter bearing
registration no. DL6SJ0863
Mfg. Yr. 1999 is registered in
the name of Sharan Aggarwal,
W/o R.K. Aggarwal R/o Flat
No. 73-B, Gulabi Bagh, DDA
FLATS, Delhi.
Ex.PW- Challan PW1 - Plaintiff.
1/N1 issued by
Delhi Traffic
Police.
Ex.PW-1/O Invoice PW1 - Plaintiff.
issued by M/s
Nayyar
Television
Pvt. Ltd. for
purchase of
Refrigerator
Ex.PW- Letter issued PW1 - Plaintiff.
1/O1 by Citi
Financial
Retails
Service with
respect to the
finance of
fridge
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 27 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
Ex.PW-8/1 Electoral Roll PW-8, AERO, Assembly
& Ex.PW- for the year Constituency No.18 brought the 8/2 1998 & 2002 summoned record Ex.PW-8/1 & of 63, Kamla Ex.PW-8/2, which shows that Nagar Sh. Bhagwant Singh and Ms. Constituency Kartar Kaur in both the electoral roll are mentioned at address no. Flat No. 73-B, Gulabi Bagh, DDA FLATS, Delhi.
Ex.PW- RTI Replies PW-12, LDC, Election office, 7, 12/B dated brought the summoned record, 11.03.2006, which shows that the defendant 02.05.2016 & and his family members were 01.03.2016 to enrolled in the electoral rolls for the RTI the year 2002, 2003, 2005 at Applications address bearing no. 1128, filed by Gulabi Bagh, Delhi Govt. Flats Plaintiff. whereas in the electoral roll for the year 1998, 1999 some other persons are enrolled in electoral roll for the same address.
Ex.PW-14A Car Loan Relationship Manager, ICICI & 14/B account Bank brought the summoned statement of record which shows that Defendant defendant applied for Car Loan and the in the year 2001 and the address repayment of the defendant on the Ex.PW-
schedule 14A & Ex.PW-14B is shown to
be 1128, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi
Govt. Flats
Ex.PW-3/1, Account PW3 - SWO, Oriental Bank of
3/2 & 3/3 statement of Commerce, Gandhi Nagar Prince produced the summoned record.
Garments,
proprietorship
concern of
defendant for
the period
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 28 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
01.04.2007 to
30.04.2007,
specimen
signature and
account
opening form.
Ex.PW-4/1 Account PW4 - SWO Corporation Bank,
Statement of Kamla Nagar brought the
Manish summoned record, which shows
Aggarwal, that Ex.PW-1/P1 i.e., cheque
son of bearing no. 445421 allegedly
plaintiff from issued by the defendant was
the period returned upaid.
01.04.2007 to
30.04.2007
Ex.PW-1/B Notice dated PW1 - Plaintiff.
& Ex.PW- 26.08.2011
1/B1 issued by the
plaintiff to the
defendant
calling upon
the defendant
to pay the
arrears of rent
and handover
the
possession of
the suit
property
alongwith the
copy of the
postal receipt
Ex.PW-
13/A Print out of PW13 - PRIP, Post office
the complaint brought the summoned record
made by the and exhibited the same as
plaintiff from Ex.PW-13/A, which shows that
the customer Notice Ex.PW-1/A was
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 29 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
care portal of delivered to the Defendant at Postal dept. the suit property on 29.08.2011. Ex.PW-1/A Site Plan of PW1 - Plaintiff.
suit property PW11- Draftsman who drafted Ex.PW-1/A deposed that he drafted the Ex.PW-1/A at the instance of the plaintiff.
Mark PW- Photocopy of PW1 - Plaintiff.
1/H demand draft
of Rs. 1 Lac
dated
14.10.1993 in
favor of Sh.
Bhagwant
Singh
Ex.PW-1/L Ration Card PW1 - Plaintiff.
issued in
favor of Sh.
Bhagwant
Singh
24. Defendant apart from other objections, which shall be dealt with later also objected to the exhibiting of Ex.PW-1/L to Ex.PW-1/O1 for later production of original as photocopies were filed earlier. The Originals of Ex.PW-1/L to Ex.PW-1/O1 were produced by the plaintiff at the time of tendering his evidence, while photocopies were filed alongwith the list of documents, thus the said objection of the defendant is meritless and is rejected. Ex. PW-1/P1 is mentioned as Ex.PW1/P. PW1 deposed that Defendant was inducted by him in the suit property in the CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 30 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi year 2004 and vide cheque Ex. PW-1/P1 defendant paid the rent. Defendant has denied existence of landlord and tenant relationship and in his cross-examination dated 08.09.2021 denied having issued the cheque Ex.PW-1/P1 in favor of the son of the plaintiff. PW4, SWO, Corporation Bank, Kamla Nagar brought the summoned record from the bank, which is Ex. Ex.PW-4/1, which shows that Ex.PW-1/P1 i.e. cheque bearing no. 445421 allegedly issued by the defendant in favor of son of the plaintiff was returned upaid. PW3, SWO, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gandhi Nagar produced the summoned record, Ex.PW-3/1, 3/2 & 3/3 and proved that the Defendant had a bank account in Oriental Bank of Commerce in the name of his proprietorship concern. Perusal of Ex.PW-1/P1 shows that it is issued from the same bank. Defendant's stance in respect of Ex.PW-1/P1 is inconsistent and the contradictions in the standpoint of the Defendant with respect to this document may be summed up as follows:
TABLE-1 10.11.2015 08.09.2021 14.12.2012 During Cross- During his cross- Defendant was examination of the examination, examined under plaintiff, PW1, a Defendant stated Order X CPC. He suggestion was that Sardar stated he does not given to PW1 by Bhagwant Singh know plaintiff at all the Ld. Counsel for has no daughter. and how he is defendant that He further denied related to Sh.
Ex.PW-1/P1 was the suggestion Bhagwant Singh. given against some that Sardar Defendant stated personal loan taken Bhagwant Singh that he knows his from daughter of has a daughter daughter Sharan Sardar Bhagwant Smt. Sharan who used to come CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 31 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi Singh and the Aggarwal, who is some times to meet cheque was married to the Sh. Bhagwant payment to be plaintiff. Singh.
returned to her and was misused after filling the name of Manish Aggarwal, which suggestion was denied by the plaintiff.
25. From the aforenoted contradictions in the stance taken by the defendant coupled with the fact that the PW3 and PW4 has proved the fact that Ex.PW-1/P1 was issued from the defendant's bank account in the name of the son of the plaintiff, preponderance is in favor of the existence of fact that Ex.PW- 1/P1 was issued by the Defendant in favor of the son of the plaintiff. The testimony of plaintiff, who deposed as PW1 is consistent, cogent and probable, whereas there are inconsistencies in the stance of the defendant with regard to the purpose for which the cheque Ex.PW-1/P1 was issued, from which the preponderance is in favor of the fact that the cheque Ex.PW-1/P1 was issued by the defendant towards the rent of the premises payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
26. Plaintiff has also relied upon Ex.PW-1/J, which is the electricity bill of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff. Defendant has objected to this document as to mode of proof as the document is photocopy. However, PW2, Assistant Accountant, TPDDL brought the summoned record Ex.PW-2/1 to show that electricity connection at the suit property is in the CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 32 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi name of the plaintiff. Defendant does not dispute the fact that the electricity connection of the suit property is in the name of the plaintiff, however a suggestion has been given to PW2 that plaintiff applied for transfer of electric meter in his name in the last month of year 2010, to which fact the PW2 has shown ignorance. Defendant has neither produced any electricity bill of the suit property in his name or in the name of Sh. Bhagwant Singh.
27. Plaintiff has also relied upon Ex.PW-1/M (colly) which are the Bills issued by MTNL in the name of the plaintiff's son. Defendant has objected to Ex.PW-1/M (colly) as to mode of proof as the same are photocopies. However, PW9, SS(O) MTNL brought the summoned record Ex.PW-9/1 and proved that the phone no. 23682895 in the name of Prashant Aggarwal was installed on 22-07-2000 at the suit property. From Ex.PW-9/1, It is proved that a telephone was installed at the suit property in the name of the son of the plaintiff.
28. Plaintiff has further relied upon Ex.PW-1/N to which defendant has objected as to mode of proof and out of pleading. Defendant has pleaded in the Written Statement that he has been in uninterrupted exclusive possession of the suit property since 04.04.1998 residing at the suit property, which averment is denied by the plaintiff in replication, who have pleaded in the plaint that defendant was inducted in the property in the year 2004. Thus Ex.PW-1/N is relevant to prove the principal fact that defendant has not been in uninterrupted exclusive possession of CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 33 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi the suit property since 04.04.1998 and the objection that Ex.PW- 1N is beyond pleading is not tenable. The other objection raised by the defendant to Ex.PW-1/N as to mode of proof. However, PW6, LDC, Transport Authority brought the summoned record and vehicle particulars/insurance policy which shows that scooter bearing registration no. DL6SJ0863 Mfg. Yr. 1999 is registered in the name of Sharan Aggarwal, W/o R.K. Aggarwal R/o Flat No. 73-B, Gulabi Bagh, DDA FLATS, Delhi. Defendant has failed to impeach the credibility of record Ex.PW-6/1 & Ex.PW- 6/2 proved by PW6.
29. Plaintiff has further relied upon Ex.PW-14A & 14/B, which are the Car Loan account statement of Defendant and the repayment schedule. PW-14, Relationship Manager, ICICI Bank brought the summoned record which shows that defendant applied for Car Loan in the year 2001 and the address of the defendant on the Ex.PW-14A & Ex.PW-14B is shown to be 1128, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi Govt. Flats. Plaintiff has also relied upon Ex.PW-1/S2 & Mark PW-1/T1, RTI Application dated 26.08.2013 and reply dated 16.09.2013 which shows that defendant's residential address in the year 2001 was 313/13E, A- 38, Gali Bank Wali, Inderlok, Jakaria, Delhi-110007. PW5, Record Clerk, Transport Dept. brought the summoned record i.e. the particulars of Vehicle bearing registration no. DL3CR7490 Ex.PW5/1, which shows that the vehicle is registered in the name of Deepak Bedi, R/o 313/13E, A-38, Gali Bank Wali, Inderlok, Jakaria, Delhi-110007. Defendant has not disputed these documents rather he admitted the same during his cross-
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 34 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi examination dated 08.09.2021. Plaintiff has also relied upon original Ration Card issued in favor of Sh. Bhagwant Singh, which is Ex. PW-1/L. Ex.PW-1/L shows that wife and both the sons of plaintiff are also shown as member of the family of Sh. Bhagwant Singh and wife of plaintiff namely Ms. Sharan Aggarwal is shown to be the daughter of the plaintiff. Though plaintiff has not mentioned the fact that he is son in law of Late Sh. Bhagwant Singh, however this document also shows that wife and children of the plaintiff are shown to be residing at the suit property.
30. PW 12 PW-12, LDC, Election office, 7, brought the summoned record Ex.PW12/B, which shows that the defendant and his family members were enrolled in the electoral rolls for the year 2002, 2003, 2005 at address bearing no. 1128, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi Govt. Flats whereas in the electoral roll for the year 1998, 1999 some other persons are enrolled in electoral roll for the same address. Defendant during his cross-examination dated 08.09.2021 admitted that he was enrolled in the electoral rolls at address bearing no. 1128, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi Govt. Flats. He also admitted that till the year 2004, he did not have voter id card showing the address as that of the suit property. Defendant also admitted that in the year 2007, he applied for loan from Oriental Bank of commerce and the he has given the voter Id card issued at the address 1128, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi Govt. Flats. Loan documents are Ex.DW1/DA.
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 35 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
31. Plaintiff also relied upon Ex.PW-1/Q & Ex.PW-1/Q, which are Death Certificates of Kartar Kaur and Sh. Bhagwant Singh respectively, which shows that Smt Kartar Kaur died on 26.01.2002 and Sh. Bhagwant Singh died on 31.08.2006, however both these documents are beyond pleadings as the plaintiff has nowhere stated these facts in the entire plaint.
32. It is settled law that the civil case is decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The Hon'ble High court in Rameshwar Dass v. Hakim Javed, 2012 SCC OnLine Del held as under:
'8. A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities is arrived at after weighing the respective evidence which is led by both the parties.'
33. In M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1720 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
The court in a civil trial applies a standard of proof governed by a preponderance of probabilities. This standard is also described sometimes as a balance of probability or the preponderance of the evidence. Phipson on Evidence formulates the standard succinctly : If therefore, the evidence is such that the court can say "we think it more probable than not", the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not. [Phipson on Evidence.] In Miller v. Ministerof Pensions [Miller v. Minister of Pensions, (1947) 2 All ER 372] , Lord Denning, J. (as the Master of Rolls then was) defined the doctrine of the balance or preponderance of probabilities in the following terms : (All ER p. 373 H) "(1) ... It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 36 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, "of course it is possible, but not in the least probable" the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice."
(emphasis supplied)
34. The Court in a civil suit has to weigh the probabilities as a prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists. In this process, the court first has to fix the probabilities and thereafter to weigh the same to determine in favor of which party, the preponderance of probabilities lies. In the present case there is overwhelming evidence adduced by the plaintiff to show that he and his family members were residing at the suit property and as discussed hereinabove, the preponderance is in favor of the fact that Ex.PW-1/P1 was issued by the defendant in favor of the son of the plaintiff towards the rent of the suit property. Plaintiff has also proved that defendant had not been using the address of the suit property on various loan documents taken by him and the registration certificates of the vehicle purchased by him upto the year 2005 does not show that defendant the address of the suit property. Defendant also admitted that he was enrolled in the voter list at some other address and not at the suit property till the year 2005. At this stage, it is relevant to discuss the documentary evidence adduced by the defendant.
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 37 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
Ex. No. Description Witness examined to prove
of Document the Document
Ex.DW-1/1 Bayana DW1
Receipt dated
04.04.1998
allegedly
issued by Sh.
Bhagwant
Singh in favor
of Defendant.
Report
Ex.DW-6/1 Handwriting expert compared
the signature of Sh. Bhagwant
Certificate Singh on Ex. DW-1/1 with the
Ex.DW-6/2 under section signatures on Ex. DX, DY, DZ 65B Indian and DW5/2.
Evidence Act
Ex.DW-1/2 Income Tax DW1
Record
(Saral)
Ex.DW-3/1 Attested copy DW3 brought the summoned
(colly) of the ITR for record, which shows that the
the financial ITR for the financial year 2003-
year 2003-04 04 shows the address of the
defendant at the suit property.
Ex.DW-1/3 Cover Note of DW1
Insurance
Policy issued
in favor of
Defendant
dated
23.06.2003
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 38 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
Ex. DW2/1 Certified true DW2, Administrative officer,
copy of Oriental Insurance Company
policy dated brough the summoned record
23.06.2003 Ex.DW2/1 to show that policy
issued in dated 23.06.2003 was issued in
name of the favor of the defendant at the suit
Defendant. property.
Ex.DW-1/4 Progress DW1
report of the
son of
Defendant
Ex.DW-1/5 Booklet of DW1
Washing
Machine
purchased by
Defendant on
03/03/2002
Ex.DW-1/6 Guarantee DW1
Card dated
09/03/2003
issued by
Kataria Sales
Corporation
Ex. DW-1/7 Site Plant of DW1
the suit
property
Ex.DW5/1 Copy of DW5, Senior officer TPDDL
installation of brought the summoned record electricity which contained the alleged connection original signature of the Late dated Sh. Bhagwant Singh on the 13/05/1986 backside of Ex.DX, DY, DZ and DW5/2 Mark.DX Copy of certificate of CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 39 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi the DDA having original signature of late Sh.
Bhagwant
Singh
Copy of
Mark.DY
allotment
letter issued
by DDA
having
original
signature of
late Sh.
Bhagwant
Singh
Mark.DZ Copy of
possession
letter having
original
signature of
late Sh.
Bhagwant
Singh.
Application
Ex.DW5/2 for
connection of
the electricity
connection
having
original
signature of
late Sh.
Bhagwant
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 40 of 57
Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
Singh
35. Plaintiff objected to mode of proof of Ex.DW-1/2 & Ex.DW-3/1 colly as Ex.DW-1/2 is a photocopy. However, DW3 produced the summoned record and proved the ITR of the Defendant for the financial year 2003-04. ITR for the financial year 2003-04 shows that the same has been filed by the defendant on 31.03.2005, thus this document does not show that the defendant was in possession of the suit property prior to 2004.
36. Defendant also relied upon Ex. DW-1/3, the cover notes of the insurance policy dated 23.06.2002. Plaintiff objected to the same as to mode of proof. DW2 brought the Certified true copy of policy dated 23.06.2003 issued in name of the Defendant. During his cross-examination, this witness admitted that the Ex.DW2/1 is the computer-generated printout and there is no original document of the policy in the record of the insurance company. No certificate under section 65 B of the Indian evidence Act has been filed in support of Ex.DW2/1, Thus this document is not proved.
37. Defendant also relied upon Ex.DW1/4, Progress report of the son of Defendant for the year 2002-03. Ex.DW1/4 has been issued by La Montessori School. No record was summoned from the school. A suggestion was put to DW1 during his cross- examination that at the time of admission of his children in Nav Bharti Senior Secondary School, he and his wife filed individual affidavits stating that children have never studied in a recognized CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 41 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi school to which the defendant replied "Diya hoga". Ex.DW1/4 is not proved.
38. Defendant has also relied upon Ex.DW1/5, which is Booklet of Washing Machine purchased by Defendant on 03/03/2002 and Ex.DW1/6 Guarantee Card dated 09/03/2003 issued by Kataria Sales Corporation. Both these documents do not contain the seal of the seller. Nor any invoice in respect of purchase of washing machine has been placed on record by the Defendant. Ex.DW1/5 and Ex.DW1/6 are accordingly not proved.
39. Defendant also relied upon Document Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW6/1, Mark. DX, DY, DZ and DW5/2. Defendant deposed as DW1 and testified that Sardar Bhagwant Singh executed Ex.DW1/1, Bayana Receipt dated 04.04.1998 in his favor for a total consideration of Rs. 3,20,000/-, out of which Rs.2,20,000/- was paid at the time of execution of Ex.DW1/1 and rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. DW1 deposed that Sh. Bhagwant Singh handed over the vacant physical possession of suit property left the suit property at the time of execution of Ex.DW1/1. DW1 deposed that it was agreed that in case the defendant failed to pay balance sale consideration to Sardar Singh within stipulated time i.e., 04.10.1998, the Bayana agreement shall be cancelled and the possession of the said flat shall be taken back from the defendant and in the event of failure on the part of Sardar Bhagwant Singh, Defendant can seek assistance of the court. Thereafter despite the best efforts of CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 42 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi the defendant and regular searching made by the defendant, Sardar Bhagwant Singh was not traceable for the making the payment of the balance sale consideration for execution of the title documents in respect of the suit property. During his cross- examination, several contradictions appear in the testimony of DW1, which are as follows:
TABLE -2 As per Ex.DW1/A Cross-examination
1. The vacant physical 1. Sardar Bhagwant possession of the suit Singh handed over property was handed physical possession of over at the time of one room of the suit execution of property to me at the Ex.DW1/1. time of execution of Bayana receipt,
2. It was agreed upon however, he retained that the balance sale rest of the suit property consideration shall be with him.
paid with the
stipulated period i.e. 2. Sardar Bhagwant
04.10.1998 however Singh left the suit
despite the best property in the year
efforts of the 2000. I had to make
defendant and regular him the payment
searching made by however, as he was not
the defendant, Sardar traceable, I could not
Bhagwant Singh was pay the same to him.
not traceable for the His wife continued to
making the payment live in the suit property
of the balance sale till she passed away in
consideration for 2002.
execution of the title
documents in respect 3. I cannot tell the age of of the suit property Sardar Bhagwant Singh at the time of execution of bayana receipt, whether it was 30years, 40 years, 50 CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 43 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi years, 60 years, 70 years, 80 years or 90 years.
40. The aforesaid contradictions in the testimony of the witness and his failure to even suggest an approximate age of Sh. Bhagwant Singh at the time of execution of Ex.DW1/1, especially when as per his own claim, he and Sh. Bhagwant Singh were residing at the suit property for 2 years, raises doubt as to truthfulness of his testimony. As per Defendant's own case, balance sale consideration was to be paid on before 04.10.1998, however since Sh. Bhagwant Singh was not traceable, therefore he could not make payment of balance consideration, however during his cross-examination, DW1 stated that Sh. Bhagwant Singh left the suit property in the year 2000 i.e. much after the date stipulated in Ex.DW1/1 for payment of balance sale consideration, however no explanation has been offered in the entire pleadings of the defendant as to why the balance sale consideration was not paid to Sh. Bhagwant Singh on or before 04.10.1998, when he was available at the suit property and no suit for specific performance was filed against him. Further defendant has taken contradictory stands with regard to the facts that Sh. Bhagwant Singh had a daughter name Sharan. The entire testimony of the defendant is full of contradictions and does not inspire confidence. Defendant has also chosen not to examine the witness Ramesh Chand, who is one of the attesting witnesses of Ex.DW1/1.
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 44 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
41. Defendant also examined handwriting expert DW6, who compared the signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh with Ex. DX, DY, DZ and DW5/2 and filed the Report Ex. DW-6/1. Mark. DX, DY, DZ are the photocopies of the document issued in favor of Sh. Bhagwant Singh by DDA submitted by him with TPPDL, while applying for the electricity connection. There are signatures on the back of these documents, with which DW6 has compared the signatures on Ex.DW1/1. Mark DX, DY, DZ were produced by DW5 from the records maintained by TPPDL. Ex.DW5/2 is the Application for connection of the electricity connection having original signature of late Sh. Bhagwant Singh. DW6 in her report Ex. DW6/1 denoted the signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh on Ex.DW1/1 as Q1 and the signatures on the back side of Mark DX, DY & DX as A-1, A-2 and A-3 respectively and the signatures on Ex. DW5/2 as A-4. The signatures on the photocopies DX and DY are denoted as A-5 & A-6. DW6 deposed that the disputed signatures Q1 and standard signatures A1 to A6 have been made by one and the same person. It is important to observe that signatures A1, A2, & A3 are not the admitted signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh and no explanation is furnished by the Witness DW5 as to why signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh were obtained on the backside of the photocopies. Signatures A-4, A-5 & A-6 are admitted signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh. This Court also has the benefit of examining the signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh on the original documents executed by the DDA of which Mark DX, DY & DX are the photocopies as the same have been filed on CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 45 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi record by the plaintiff as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the Court deems it fit to examine the DW6/1 with reference to the comparison of disputed signatures Q1 and admitted signatures A-4, A-5 and A-6 only.
42. DW6 in her report on page 4 noted that on examination and comparison of Q1 with A-5 and A-6, it is observed that the writer has a unique habit of dropping a few letters while signing, however as per the observation of this Court, there is no dropping of letters in disputed signatures Q1, whereas in A-4, A-5 and A-6, some of the letters especially the letter G and N are consistently dropped in the later part of the signatures. One more important distinction, which is not mentioned in the report is that in later part of the disputed signatures Q1, there is a noticeable gap after letter I in SINGH, which gap is not there in any of the signatures A-4 to A-6. DW6 has herself marked this gap in the disputed signature and admitted signatures, however the witness cleverly tries to compare this gap between letter I and N in the later part of disputed signatures Q1 with the gap before letter h in the signatures A-4 to A-6. In the disputed signatures Q1, the upper body cup of letter B is light, whereas in all the signatures A-4 to A-6, it is dark. Similarly, the staff of letter B in the admitted signatures shows a dark point on the top, which is missing in the disputed signatures Q1. In the disputed signatures Q1, letter h starts with a hook, which is missing in the letter h in the admitted signatures. In letter t in the admitted signatures, stroke moving from the top downwards vertically is straight line, whereas in the disputed signatures, the stroke is spiraled downward. The body CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 46 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi oval in the letter g in disputed signature Q1 is compressed, whereas in A-4, A-5 and A-6, it is well defined and elliptical. Similarly, in Q1, letter w has an angular v in the first part, whereas in admitted signatures, it is rounded. In Q1, the dot above letter I is rounded, whereas in admitted signatures, it is elongated. The examination of admitted signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh and disputed signatures Q1 on Bayana Receipt coupled with the fact that DW6 has presumed the signatures A1, A2, & A3 to be admitted signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh shows that the report Ex. DW-6/1 is full of discrepancies and contradictions. Thus, the opinion of the handwriting expert DW6 is not reliable. I do not deem it necessary to dwell into the handwriting expert report Ex.PW 15/1 furnished by PW15 examined by plaintiff who deposed that that the disputed signatures on Bayana Receipt is forged signature and it has not been put by the actual writer 'Bhagwant Singh' who has written the admitted signatures on Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G, and the same has been mentioned in his aforesaid report as in the said report also the comparison was not done with the admitted signatures of Sh. Bhagwant Singh.
43. Defendant has failed to prove Ex.DW1/1. His testimony is full of contradictions. He has been taking contradictory stands with regard to Ms. Sharan Agarwal being the daughter of Sh. Bhagwant Singh as mentioned in TABLE -1. He has given different versions with regard to handing over of the possession of suit property by Sh. Bhagwant Singh as observed in TABLE
-2. Defendant has failed to prove any of the document relied CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 47 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi upon by him to show that he was in possession of the suit property prior to 2004, whereas the plaintiff has shown his prior possession of the suit property, which falsify the case of the defendant that he has been in possession of the suit property since 1998. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of DW1. DW1 has failed to prove Ex.DW1/1 and has offered no explanation as to why he did not file any suit for specific performance against Sh. Bhagwant Singh, who as per the case of the defendant remained in property upto 2000. On the other hand, the testimony of the plaintiff is consistent, cogent and probable. Plaintiff has proved Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G and other documents, which shows that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property and Sh. Bhagwant Singh has executed Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/G in favor of the plaintiff. Ex.PW1/G is the registered will of Sh. Bhagwant Singh, which has been duly proved by the plaintiff as discussed hereinbefore. Ex.PW-1/P1 has also been duly proved, which is a cheque issued by the defendant in favor of the son of the plaintiff. PW1 has deposed that the said cheque was issued in lieu of the rent of the premises by the defendant. Defendant has failed to impeach the credibility of the PW1, whose testimony is consistent and reliable. On the other hand, defendant has taken contradictory stands with regard to issuance of Ex.PW-1/P1 as shown in TABLE 1. Further it is established proposition of law that tenancy can be created by oral agreement. It is admitted fact that electricity connection at the suit premises is in favor of the plaintiff, which fact is not disputed by the defendant, though CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 48 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi defendant disputes the date on which the connection was transferred. Defendant has not produced any electricity bill in his name. Defendant has further deposed that he has been paying the electricity bill. Defendant has also deposed that he does not know the plaintiff. It does not seem probable that the defendant who is claiming to be in possession of the suit property pursuant to execution of Ex.DW1/1, the Bayana Receipt and has also testified that he has been paying the electricity charges would not know that the electricity connection is in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the fact that defendant did not raise any dispute with regard to transfer of electricity connection in the name of the plaintiff and continued to pay the electricity bill would only show acquiescence by the defendant to the fact that plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the suit property.
44. In view of the above discussion, the preponderance is in favor of the fact that the plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the suit property. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion the plaintiff being the landlord/owner of the suit property has the locus to file the present suit. Issue no. (vi) and (vii) are decided in favor of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. (i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of suit property i.e. Flat no. 73-B, Gulabi Bagh, DDA Flats, Delhi as prayed for?
45. In view of findings of issue no. (vi) and (vii) recorded in favor of the plaintiff, it has been duly proved that the plaintiff is CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 49 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi the owner of the suit property. Relationship of landlord and tenant has also held to be proved. PW1 has deposed that the defendant has stopped paying rent of the suit property. He deposed that tenancy commenced w.e.f. 01.09.2004 at an agreed rent of Rs. 3,500/- excluding water and electricity charges with an increase in rent @ 10%. It is not the case of the defendant that he is a statutory tenant, rather he has denied the status of the plaintiff as the landlord. The testimony of plaintiff is consistent, cogent and probable. The defendant has failed to impeach the credibility of the witness. No evidence has been led by the defendant qua the rent of the premises. Ex.PW1/P-1 has also been duly proved by the plaintiff as cheque issued by the defendant towards the rent of the suit property.
46. The plaintiff has also relied upon notice Ex.PW-1/B & Ex.PW-1/B1, the Notice dated 26.08.2011 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and handover the possession of the suit property alongwith the copy of the postal receipt respectively. PW13 - PRIP, Post office brought the summoned record and exhibited the same as Ex.PW-13/A, which shows that Notice Ex.PW-1/A was delivered to the Defendant at the suit property on 29.08.2011. Thus, the lease/tenancy has been duly terminated. Further Hon'ble High Court in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha , 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1515 observed as under:
11. The second argument that the legal notice dated 15.7.2006 was not received by the appellant, and consequently the tenancy cannot be said to have been validly CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 50 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi terminated, is also an argument without substance and there are many reasons for rejecting this argument. These reasons are as follows : -
(i) The respondents/plaintiffs appeared in the trial Court and exhibited the notice terminating tenancy dated 15.7.2006 as Ex.PW1/3 and with respect to which the registered receipt, UPC and AD card were exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/6.
The notice admittedly was sent to the correct address and which aspect was not disputed before the trial Court. Once the respondents/plaintiffs led evidence and duly proved the service of legal notice, the appellant/defendant was bound to lead rebuttal evidence to show that the notice was not served although the same was posted to the correct address. Admittedly, the appellant/defendant led no evidence in the trial Court. In fact, even leading of evidence in rebuttal by the appellant would not have ordinarily helped the appellant as the notice was sent to the correct address. In my opinion, therefore, the trial Court was justified in arriving at a finding that the legal notice dated 15.7.2006 was duly served upon the appellant resulting in termination of the tenancy.
(ii) The Supreme Court in the case of Nopany Investments (P)Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728 has held that the tenancy would stand terminated under general law on filing of a suit for eviction. Accordingly, in view of the decision in the case of Nopany (supra) I hold that even assuming the notice terminating tenancy was not served upon the appellant (though it has been served and as held by me above) the tenancy would stand terminated on filing of the subject suit against the appellant/defendant.
(iii) In the suits for rendition of accounts of a dissolved partnership at will and partition of HUF property, ordinarily it is required that a notice be given of dissolving the partnership at will or for severing the joint status before the filing of such suits because such suits proceed on the basis that the partnership is already dissolved or the joint status of an HUF stands severed by service of notices prior to the CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 51 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi filing of such suits. However, it has been held in various judicial pronouncements that the service of summons in the suit will be taken as the receipt of notice of the dissolution of the partnership or severing of the joint status in case of non service of appropriate notices and therefore the suits for dissolution of partnership and partition of HUF property cannot be dismissed on the technical ground that the partnership was not dissolved before filing of the suit or the joint status was not severed before filing a suit for partition of the HUF property by serving of appropriate notices. In my opinion, similar logic can be applied in suits for possession filed by landlords against the tenants where the tenancy is a monthly tenancy and which tenancy can be terminated by means of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Once we take the service of plaint in the suit to the appellant/defendant as a notice terminating tenancy, the provision of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC can then be applied to take notice of subsequent facts and hold that the tenancy will stand terminated after 15 days of receipt of service of summons and the suit plaint. This rationale ought to apply because after all the only object of giving a notice under Section 106 is to give 15 days to the tenant to make alternative arrangements. In my opinion, therefore, the argument that the tenancy has not been validly terminated, and the suit could not have been filed, fails for this reason also. In this regard, I am keeping in view the amendment brought about to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by Act 3 of 2003 and as per which Amendment no objection with regard to termination of tenancy is permitted on the ground that the legal notice did not validly terminate the tenancy by a notice ending with the expiry of the tenancy month, as long as a period of 15 days was otherwise given to the tenant to vacate the property. The intention of Legislature is therefore clear that technical objections should not be permitted to defeat substantial justice and the suit for possession of tenanted premises once the tenant has a period of 15 days for vacating the tenanted premises.
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 52 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi
(iv) Another reason for rejecting the argument that the tenancy would not be terminated by the legal notice Ex.PW1/3 is that the respondents/plaintiffs admittedly filed a copy of this notice alongwith the suit way back in the year 2007. Once the summons in the suit alongwith documents were served upon the appellant/tenant, the appellant/tenant would obviously have received such notice. Even if we take this date when the appellant/tenant received a copy of the notice when served with the documents in the suit, once again, the period of 15 days has expired thereafter and keeping the legislative intendment of amended Section 106 in view, the appellant therefore cannot argue that the tenancy is not terminated and he did not get a period of 15 days to vacate the premises. I am in view of this position consequently entitled to take notice of subsequent events under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, and taking notice of the subsequent events of the expiry of 15 days after receipt of a copy of the notice alongwith documents in the suit, I hold that the tenancy has been validly terminated, and as on date, the appellant/tenant has no right to stay in the premises and consequently the decree for possession was rightly passed by the trial Court.
47. In the present case, copy of the notice is filed with the plaint and which is served upon the defendant alongwith the summons of the suit and which also can be treated as service under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, the oral lease/rent agreement stood terminated and plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of suit property Flat no. 73-B, Gulabi Bagh, DDA Flats. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 53 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi ISSUE NO. (ii) . Whether the plaintiff entitled for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from October, 2008 to September, 2011 totaling to Rs.1,93,000/- and further till disposal of the present case as prayed for?
&
(iii). If so, whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so at what rate and for what period? OPD &
(iv). Whether plaintiff is entitled for electricity, water charges alongwith penalties as prayed for? OPP &
(v). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages and compensation as prayed for? OPP
48. Issue no. (ii) to (v) are taken up together for adjudication. Plaintiff deposed as PW1 and stated that defendant paid the rent till October 2008 but thereafter the defendant did not pay even a single penny towards the rent to the plaintiff. He deposed that tenancy commenced w.e.f. 01.09.2004 at an agreed rent of Rs. 3,500/- excluding water and electricity charges with an increase in rent @ 10% per annum. Plaintiff has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,93,000/- towards the rent of the suit property for the period from October, 2008 to September, 2011. Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 51,230/- towards the rent for the period 01.11.2008 to 31.08.2009 @ 5123/- per month, Rs. 67,230/- for the period 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2010 @5635 per month and Rs. 74,376/- towards the rent for the period 01.09.2010 to 30.08.2011 @ 6198/- per month. Plaintiff has also sought further rent till the disposal of the CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 54 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi present case. Defendant has led no evidence as to rate of rent and has claimed to be in possession of the suit property pursuant to execution of Ex.DW1/1 in his favor, which he has failed to prove. Plaintiff testimony is consistent, probable and reliable whereas the testimony of the defendant is full of material contradiction as discussed in the findings on issue no. (vi) and
(vii). Thus, from the testimony of the plaintiff, it is proved that defendant has failed to pay the rent from October 2008 onward. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 1,93,000/- towards the rent of the suit property for the period from October, 2008 to September, 2011. Further plaintiff has also claimed rent, damages and compensation alongwith interest @ 18% per annum towards unauthorized occupation of the suit property by the defendant during the pendency of the present suit. In case rent is calculated @ rate claimed in the suit with 10% increase per annum, the rent of the suit property will range from Rs.6,818 to Rs.21,396/-. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the interest of the justice would be served, if the plaintiff is awarded damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 14,67,000/-. Thus, in addition to. Rs. 1,93,000/- towards the rent of the suit property for the period from October, 2008 to September, 2011, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the damages/compensation/rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of institution of suit till disposal. Plaintiff shall be further entitled to pendentlite interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,93,000/-. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to future interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.1,93,000/- and on the amount of Rs. 14,67,000/- till its CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 55 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi realization.
49. Plaintiff has also claimed electricity, water charges alongwith penalties. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. Defendant has deposed that he has been paying electricity and water charges. Plaintiff has neither produced any electricity bills, water bills showing any arrears of electricity/water charges nor filed any evidence to show that these charges were paid by him. Thus, plaintiff has failed to prove his entitlement to electricity and water charges. Accordingly, issue no. (ii), (iii) and (v) are decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue no. (iv) is decided in favor of defendant.
RELIEF
50. From the discussions, as adumbrated hereinabove, I hereby pass the following:
FINAL ORDER
(a) A decree of possession is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of suit property i.e., Flat no. 73-B, Gulabi Bagh, DDA Flats, Delhi.
(b) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 1,93,000 to-
wards the rent of the suit property for the period from October, 2008 to September, 2011 alongwith pendente lite interest @ 6% per annum and future interest @ 9% per annum till its realization.
(c) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 14,67,000/-
CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 56 of 57 Ram Kishan Aggarwal V. Deepak Bedi towards the rent of the suit property from the date of in- stitution of suit till final disposal alongwith future inter- est @ 9% per annum till its realization.
(d) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
51. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly on furnishing the deficient court fees.
52. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 5 th Day of January, 2024.
(ALOK SHUKLA) ADJ-07 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi transferred vide order dated 14.12.2023 Presently posted as ASJ-2/Special Judge (NDPS) East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi/05.01.2024 (This judgment was reserved by the undersigned while posted as ADJ-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Court Delhi and the same has now been pronounced by the undersigned as per directions contained in the Order No. 50/D3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2023 dated 14.12.23) CS DJ NO.:- 613875/2016 Page - 57 of 57