Delhi District Court
Shakuntala Through Lrs vs Jagjit Singh Sawhney Through Lrs And ... on 28 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-01
(CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
RCA No. 67/18
CNR No. DLCT-01 004353 2018
SHAKUNTLA (since deceased)
Through LRs
1. Shri Surinder arora
S/o Late Jwala Dass
2. Shri Rakesh Kumar
S/o Late Jwala Dass
Both R/o : House No. 2453, Ground Floor,
Basti Punjabian, Old Subzi Mandi,
New Delhi-110007 .....APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Jagjit Singh Sawhney (since deceased)
S/o Late Ram Singh Sawhney
c/o Guru Finance Co. Plaza Cinema
New Delhi-110001
Through LR's
a. Kamal Jeet Singh Sawhney (Since Deceased)
Through LR's
i. Mrs Brijmohan Kaur Sawhney
w/o Late Kamal Jeet Singh Sawhney
ii. Sh Harsimar Singh Sawhney
s/o Late Kamal Jeet Singh Sawhney
iii. Harkunwar Singh Sawhney
s/o Late Kamal Jeet Singh Sawhney
RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 1 /29
All R/o 873-B, Block A, Sushant Lok-I,
Gurgoan, Haryana.
b. Ms Chiranjeev Sawhney
W/o Shri Inderpal Singh
R/o C-13, Sector-26,
Noida :201301
c. Ms Gunjeev Kalra
W/o Sh Jitender Kalra
R/o C Bolck, 173, Gaur City,
Avenue-1, Sector- 4,
Greater Noida, West 201308.
2. Neeta Sawhney
w/o Late Shri Gurcharan Singh Sawhney
3. Shri Varinder Singh Sawhney
w/o Late Shri Gurcharan Singh Sawhney
4. Ms Jasleen
G/o Late Shri Gurcharan Singh Sawhney
All 2 to 4 R/o M-120,
Greater Kailash, Part II,
New Delhi-110049 .....RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 28.03.2018
Date of Reserving Judgment : 21.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 28.10.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal was filed by the appellant (since deceased now represented through his LRs) challenging the order dated 17.03.2018 in CS No 6937/2016 vide which the Ld. Trial Court had decreed the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to in accordance with their rank/status before the Ld. Trial Court i.e. the RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 2 /29 appellant shall be referred to as the Defendants and the respective respondents shall be referred to as the respective Plaintiffs.
3. The plaintiff had filed the suit being CS No. 6937/2016 for recovery of possession, mesne profits/ damages for use and occupation against the defendants on 03.09.2001 pleading inter-alia as follows:
i. That the property bearing no XII/2452-56, 2472-76, 2482, Basti Punjabian, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi was sold in public auction by way of two registered sale deeds dt 18.11.1972 & 16.11.1972 in favour of Sh Jagdish Rai & Parvesh sons of Sh Mulkh Raj & M/s Dharam Singh through its legal heirs namely Basant Kaur, Jagjit Singh Sawhney and Gurcharan Singh Sawhney son of Lt Sh Ram Singh Sawhney in equal shares. Later on, the above said property was partitioned by way of registered partition deed executed between said co-owners whereby the property no 2452-56 came into the share of the plaintiffs.
ii. That as per the plaintiffs, their names have been duly mutated in the record of MCD in respect of property bearing no 2452-56 Basti Punjabian, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi and they have verified that as per the survey conducted by MCD the name of defendant was not shown as one of the tenants when the property was under the rehabilitation department.
iii. That the defendant was in possession of part of property no. 2453, Basti Punjabian, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi and has carried out unauthorized construction in the property. That one of the unauthorized occupants Sh Viney Kumar Kapoor has also filed a suit for injunction on the basis of adverse possession and as per the plaintiffs they were granted permission from the court for preparing the site plan according to the site regarding the portion under the RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 3 /29 occupation of the defendant in that suit. The draftsman who was taken to the site tried to prepare the site plan of that portion but was disallowed by the other unauthorized occupants including the defendant.
iv. That the plaintiffs filed the present suit on the basis of unauthorized occupation of the defendant taking the unauthorized occupation from the survey report of the MCD conducted in 1999. However the plan of the suit property was not filed as it could not be prepared on account of the recalcitrant attitude of the defendant. The plaintiffs reserved their right of filing the plan after taking permission from the present court for preparing the site plan as per the site and as per the actual portion under the occupation of the defendant.
v. That as per plaintiffs, the defendants were neither residing in the premises in her own right nor by way of any derivation of title through anybody who could pass title on her by way of sale deed or otherwise. As per plaintiffs no such document was available at the time of conducting the survey in 1999 by the MCD in the record of MCD. In the survey report, the designation of the defendant is shown as PPO (Person in present Occupation). The plaintiffs challenged the right of the defendant for the continued unauthorized occupation of the portion as well as added portion under her occupation. As per plaintiffs, the status of the defendant is that of trespasser and unauthorized occupant and she has no legal right to be in the portion under her occupation. vi. As per plaintiffs, many other occupants of the property bearing no 2452-56 Basti Punjabian, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi claimed adverse possession on the basis of long use which has been challenged by them. As per plaintiffs, the defendant cannot allege the claim adverse possession of the premises on the basis of long use and RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 4 /29 possession as it is disputed because since the inception of possession of the defendant was unauthorized but it was not adverse to the true owners of the property. That the unauthorized portion constructed by the defendant in property no 2453 was not in accordance with the permission sought by the defendant either from MCD or the principal owners i.e. the plaintiffs and the portion including the unauthorized/additional portion in occupation of the defendant in the site plan is not based upon any legal and valid ground.
vii. That the plaintiffs sent a notice dt 02.01.2001 to the defendant inter alia calling upon the defendant to restore the possession in respect of one room, one verandah, passage, three rooms, kitchen and further passage and they were asked to remove the unauthorized portion and as such the plaintiff filed the suit (from which the present appeal has arisen) before the Ld. Trial Court seeking following prayers:
i) a decree of possession in respect of the portion shown red in the site plan annexed with the plaint forming part of property no 2453, Basti Punjabian, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007.
ii) a decree for damages for use and occupation from May 2000 to November 2000 at the rate of Rs 2,000/- P.M.
iii) To pass a decree of permanent injunction inter alia restraining the defendant not to part with the possession or to create any third party interest in respect of the portion in her occupation till the final disposal of the suit.
iv) To award the Costs of the proceedings;
v) Any other relief or such other relief to which the plaintiff are entitled may also be granted.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. The defendant filed its written statement before the Ld. Trial Court chal-
lenging the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the present suit is not maintainable as the same is without any cause of action and is liable to be RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 5 /29 dismissed u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit and they have no right, title and interest in the property in any manner whatsoever nor they are in possession of any portion of the property.
5. The defendant further stated that she is in possession of the suit property within her own right as owner thereof by purchasing the same from one Smt Jeet Kaur W/o Sarder Sewa Singh r/o H No 2453, Basti Punjabian, Subzi Mandi, Delhi by virtue of GPA dt 21.07.1986 executed in her favour by Jeet Kaur her and since then she is in occupation and enjoying the property as the exclusive owner without any interference from any quarter whatsoever.
6. It is further submitted that the marriage of son of the defendant was sol-
emnized at the said address on 10.12.1986 and a telephone connection is also installed in the name of the son of the defendant and the defendant is also holding her ration card at the said address issued in June 1996 as well as election I Card dt 23.01.1995 and that these documents shows her con- firmation in the premises bearing no 2453, Basti Punjabian, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
7. It is further submitted that even the grand daughter of the defendant was born at the suit premises and accordingly the defendant is in possession of the suit property since the year-1986.
8. Besides the aforesaid it is submitted by the defendant that the original de-
fendant as well as the LRs came into possession after the same has been parted out by the original tenants as per the assessment record of the MCD of the year-1986 as per which Sh. Kishan Singh is the original ten- ant of the Ministry of Rehabilitation from which the predecessor-in-inter- est of the defendants had purchased the suit property therefore there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in view of RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 6 /29 the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the jurisdic- tion of the Civil Court is barred.
9. On Merits, it has been submitted that one Sh. Kishan Singh was the tenant in respect of his portion of the suit property and who used to pay rent to the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Custodian of Evacuee Property and that the property was auctioned by the Ministry of Rehabilitation on 05.08.1955. It has further been submitted that Sh. Kishan Singh sold his rights to Smt. Jeet Kaur, w/o Sh. Sewa Singh who thereafter transferred the rights in favour of the present defendant by virtue of GPA dated 21.07.1986 and since thereafter the defendant is in possession and occu- pation thereof as an owner.
10. It has further been submitted that the defendant has become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession being in possession continuously and uninterruptedly for the last more than 17 years. It has been denied that the defendant's possession has to be shown hostile against the two owners or that the defendant is liable to pay the damages for use and oc- cupation to the plaintiff.
11. A replication was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein denying that any rights of ownership can be claimed by the defendant on the basis of GPA while reiterating the contents of the plaint.
12. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues/additional is-
sues were framed by the Ld Trial Court :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession as claimed in the suit? OPP
2. To what amount of damages/mesne profit the plaintiff is entitled and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the suit is under-valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction?
OPD ADDITIONAL ISSUES
4. Whether the suit is barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act? OPD
5. Whether the suit is barred by Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act? OPD
6. Relief.
RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 7 /29EVIDENCE
13. Plaintiff no. 6 i.e. Neeta Sawhney examined herself as PW-1 and ten-
dered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and she relied upon the following documents which are as follows :- Ex. PW1/1 is the notice dated 02.02.2001, Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/6 to Ex/ PW1/8, Mark A is the postal receipt and Mark B is the UPC however the said doc- uments are not exhibited on record and subsequently the said witness was again examined as PW-6.
14. Plaintiff examined one Architect namely Sh. Anil Sharma as PW-2. He deposed that he visited the site alongwith Mr. Darshan Singh who was representative of the plaintiff and that he prepared the correct site plan Ex. PW2/1 according to the site bearing his signatures as well as signatures of one Ms. Richa Sahini and plaintiff no. 2.
15. Plaintiff also examined one Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Record Clerk, Sub Regis-
trar from Office I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as PW-3 and brought the record relating to sale certificates dated 18.11.1972 registered on 23.11.1972 in their record and that certified copies of the same are Ex. PW2/1 and Ex. PW2/2. The certified copy of the partition deed dated 01.02.1982 i.e. Ex. PW2/3 was registered on 03.02.1982 (subsequently vide order dated 05.11.2011, Ld. Predecessor directed that Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/3 be read as Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/3).
16. Plaintiff examined one Sh. N.K Maurya, LDC, House Tax Department, Civil Lines Zone, MCD, Delhi as PW-4. He brought the record related to the survey of property no. 2452-56, Punjabi Bastiyan Roshanara Road, Delhi and that the certified copy of the survey report i.e. Ex. PW4/1 is- sued from their record and had also seen the photocopy of survey report RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 8 /29 Mark PA relating to the property in dispute dated 17.10.1984 in his record and he deposed that the photocopy filed on record is correct.
17. The plaintiff examined one Mr. Anil Kumar, Record Keeper, House Tax Department, Civil Lines as PW-5 and he exhibited the mutation certificate as Ex. PW5/1 and the survey report as Ex. PW5/2.
18. The plaintiff i.e. Neeta Sawhney examined herself as PW-6 and she ten-
dered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW6/A and she relied upon the following documents :-
S.No Exhibit Documents
1. Mark A Copy of legal notice dated 02.01.2001.
2. Mark B Copy of postal certificate.
3. Mark C Copy of postal receipt.
19. She also relied upon the documents which are already exhibited as Ex.
PW2/1, Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/3, Ex. PW4/1, Ex. PW5/1 and Ex. PW5/2.
20. The defendant examined her son Mr. Surender Arora as DW-1 and he ten-
dered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and he relied upon only one document i.e. GPA dated July, 1986 i.e. Ex. DW1/1.
21. The Ld Court of Civil Judge held that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession on the ground that the defendant/appellant has failed to prove the factum of transfer of tenancy rights of Sh Kishan Singh who was a tenant under the Ministry of Rehabilitation and accordingly cannot be considered as the tenant of the Government and thereafter of the plain- tiff by attornment. The Ld Civil Judge on the alternative defence adopted by the defendant/appellant to the effect that the defendant/appellant has become the owner on the basis of adverse possession has held the same to be a destructive plea. The Ld Civil Judge on the plea of adverse posses- sion has held that firstly the defendant has failed to prove the said plea against the plaintiff who has not pleaded or proved as to how and when RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 9 /29 the possession of the defendant/appellant became adverse to the knowl- edge of the plaintiff, given the fact that the defendant was not even having the knowledge about the plaintiffs being the actual owner of the suit prop- erty. The Ld Civil Judge on the defence of adverse possession further held that no evidence has been led by the defendant to show that the posses- sion of the defendant was known to the plaintiff since more than 12 years prior to filing of the suit. The Ld Civil Judge accordingly on the basis of preponderance of probabilities held that the plaintiffs were able to prove their ownership and the defendants have failed to prove either the tenancy with the plaintiffs or the title of the defendant being perfected by adverse possession or otherwise and accordingly decided issue no 1 in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession.
22. The Ld Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dt 17.03.2018 decided the consequential issue of the damage/mesne profits (issue No 2) in favour of the plaintiff and also decided issue no 3 in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the admission of DW-1 to the effect that the suit has been cor- rectly valued. The Ld Civil Judge on additional issue No 4 held that on the basis of findings of issue no 1 since the defendant has failed to prove the relationship of landlord/tenant of the defendant with the original own- ers and the subsequent owners hence held the suit to be maintainable be- fore a Civil Court and denied the applicability of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act who on the basis of findings on issue no 1 & issue no 4 held that the suit was not barred u/s 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act.
23. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt 17.03.2018 as passed by the Ld Civil Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the defen- dant/appellant primarily on the following grounds:
RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 10 /29(a) That the defendant/appellant had become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession who has been in continuous possession as an exclusive owner thereof without any interference from any court.
(b) That the Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the import of Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act and also the fact that since the present suit has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation hence on determination of the same, the plaintiff is left with no rights in the suit property and the same stands extinguished.
(c) That the Ld Trial Court returned erroneous findings on issue no 4 and has failed to appreciate that the suit as filed by the plaintiff was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT.
24. Learned counsel for the Appellant has argued that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the Appellant had become the owner of the suit property by way of his remaining in uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and also that the Respondent herein since was aware of the possession of the Appellants since more than 12 years had no remedy left against the Appellant by virtue of Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act. It was further argued that the suit as filed by the Plaintiff was beyond the period of limitation hence by virtue of Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act, the present suit is not maintainable and the respondent is left with no remedy against the appellant herein. It was further argued that the suit as filed by the Plaintiffs was not maintainable in view of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act since the appellant was the successor in interest of the earlier tenant under the Ministry of Rehabilitation who had sold the property to the predecessor in interest of the defendants/appellants.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 11 /29
25. Ld counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment as passed by the Ld Civil Judge who has submitted that mere long possession of the appellant would be insufficient to confer ownership upon the appellant by way of adverse possession. It is submitted that in the suit mutually destructive pleas have been taken by the appellant who on one hand claims to have become the owner of the suit property who also contends that the defendant/appellant has become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession and who also claims to have a relationship of tenant with the plaintiff/respondents on the ground that the suit property was purchased by the defendant from a person to whom the original tenant i.e. Sh Kishan Singh had sold the same. It is further contended that the order/judgment passed by Ld Trial Court suffers from no infirmity since the same has dealt with all the contentions raised by the parties. It is further submitted that in the present case the core fact i.e. animus possendi has not been proved at all by the defendant/appellant hence there is no question of the defendant/appellant having become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
26. Arguments heard. Considered.
27. Before proceeding to appreciate the contention of the Ld counsel for the appellant that the defendant has become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession or that consequent upon the expiry of the period of limitation by virtue of Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act, the plaintiff has been left with no rights in the suit property, it is deemed appropriate to quote the relevant case law as follows:
28. In T Anjanappa Vs Somalingappa & Ors (2006) 7 SCC 570 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had set aside the finding of the Hon'ble High Court that the defendants claiming adverse possession do not have to prove who is the true owner. If the defendants are not sure who the true RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 12 /29 owner is, the question of them being in hostile possession as well as of denying the title of the true owner does not arise. The Court held as under:
"12. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. The principle of law is firmly established that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property.
13. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them:
"24. It is a matter of fundamental principle of law that where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. It is on the basis of this principle that it has been laid down that since the possession of one co-owner can be referred to his status as co-owner, it cannot be considered adverse to other co- owners." (See Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash [(1995) 4 SCC 496] , SCC p. 504, para 24.)
14. Adverse possession is that form of possession or occupancy of land which is inconsistent with the title of the rightful owner and tends to extinguish that person's title. Possession is not held to be adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title. The person setting up adverse possession may have been holding under the rightful owner's title e.g. trustees, guardians, bailiffs or agents. Such persons cannot set up adverse possession:
"14. ... Adverse possession means a [hostile possession] which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 [of the Limitation Act,] burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 13 /29 show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. ...
15. Where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all. (See Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant [(1995) 2 SCC 543, p. 554 : AIR 1995 SC 895, p. 902] , SCC p. 554, paras 14 15.)"
29 In Brijesh Kumar & Anr. v. Shardabai (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Ors., (2019) 9 SCC 369 the Court held as under:
"13. Adverse possession is hostile possession by assertion of a hos- tile title in denial of the title of the true owner as held in M. Venkatesh [M. Venkatesh v. BDA, (2015) 17 SCC 1 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 387] . The respondent had failed to establish peaceful, open and continuous possession demonstrating a wrongful ouster of the rightful owner. It thus involved question of facts and law. The onus lay on the respondent to establish when and how he came into pos-
session, the nature of his possession, the factum of possession known and hostile to the other parties, continuous possession over 12 years which was open and undisturbed. The respondent was seek- ing to deny the rights of the true owner. The onus therefore lay upon the respondent to establish possession as a fact coupled with that it was open, hostile and continuous to the knowledge of the true owner. The respondent plaintiff failed to discharge the onus. Refer- ence may also be made to Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao [Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 452] , on adverse possession observing as follows: (SCC p. 322, para 15) "15. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until the possessor holds the property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse pos- session is required to establish the date on which he came in posses- sion, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and that possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equi- ties in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 14 /29 and, hence, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts neces- sary to establish adverse possession. The courts always take unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding property rights. The plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law."
30. In Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao vs. Galla Jani Kamma; Civil Appeal No. 4788/2008, the payment of tax receipts and mere possession for some years was found insufficient to claim adverse possession. It was held that if according to the defendant, the plaintiff was not the true owner, his possession hostile to the plaintiff's title will not be sufficient. The Court held as under:
"19. The defendant claimed that he had perfected his title by adverse pos- session by being in open, continuous and hostile possession of the suit property from 1957. He also produced some tax receipts showing that he has paid the taxes in regard to the suit land. Some tax receipts also showed that he paid the tax on behalf of someone else. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, both the courts have entered a con- current finding that the defendant did not establish adverse possession, and that mere possession for some years was not sufficient to claim ad- verse possession, unless such possession was hostile possession, denying the title of the true owner. The courts have pointed out that if according to the defendant, the plaintiff was not the true owner, his possession hos- tile to the plaintiff's title will not be sufficient and he had to show that his possession was also hostile to the title and possession of the true owner. After detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court and the High Court also held that the appellant was only managing the properties on behalf of the plaintiff and his occupation was not hostile possession."
31 In a recent judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M Radheshyam-
lan Babu Vs V. Sandhya & Ors (Civil Appeal No 4322-4324/2024), it has been held that in order to prove the plea of adverse possession (a) it must be pleaded and proved that the possession is being claimed adverse to the true owner, (b) it must be pleaded and proved that the long and continuous possession was known to the true owner, (c) it must also be pleaded when the person claiming adverse possession came into possession, and (d) it RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 15 /29 must be established that the possession was open and undistrubed and the wrongful continuous possession was for a period for more than 12 years. ' 12 Therefore to prove the plea of adverse possession:
(a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner;
(b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the factum of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner;
(c) The plaintiff must also plead and establish when he came into possession; and
(d) The plaintiff must establish that his possession was open and undisturbed."
"It is a settled law that by pleading adverse possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his favour. After all, the plea is based on continuous wrongful possession for a period of more than 12 years. Therefore, the facts constituting the ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff."
32. In Annasaheb Bapu Saheb Patil Vs Balwant AIR 1995 SC 895, it was held that Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes that for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, the limitation of 12 years begins to run from the date of the defendant's in- terest becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Adverse possession means a hostile assertion i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse posses- sion, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed.
Where possession could be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 16 /29 can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his pos- session was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. There- fore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot di- vest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all.
33. In Saroop Singh Vs Banto 2005 (8) SCC 330 has been held that in terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date defendants possession became adverse.
34. In Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak and Others and Others vs. Somnath Muljib-
hai Nayak and Others (2004) 3 SCC 376] 'Animus possidendi' is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the Appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. [See Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Jagdish Kalita and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 271, para 21].
35. Yet again in Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and others [(2004) 10 SCC 779], it was observed :
"Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his ad- verse possession."RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 17 /29
36. The Plaintiff in the present case has maintained the suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction against the Defendant by pleading that the property bearing no. XII/2452-56, 2472-76 and 2482, Basti Punjabian, Roshnara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-07 and was sold in public auction by way of two registered sale deeds dated 18.11.1972 and 16.11.1972 in favour of Jagdish Rai and Parvesh, Sons of Shri Mulkh Raj, M/s Dharam Singh through their LRs namely Basant Kaur, Jagjit Singh Sawhney and Gurcharan Singh Sawhney, sons of Late Shri Ram Singh Sawhney in equal shares which was later partitioned whereby the property no. 2452-56 came to the share of the plaintiffs by virtue of partition deed.
37. The Plaintiffs as per the Plaint have filed the suit for possession, damages/mense profit and permanent injunction against the Defendants on 03.09.2001 on gaining knowledge about the unauthorised occupancy of the suit property by the Defendants from the original survey record con- ducted by the MCD in the month of May 2000 when the property was un- der the Rehabilitation Department wherein the name of the Defendant was not shown as one of the Tenant. The unauthorised occupancy of the suit property by the Defendants came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs from the survey report of the MCD conducted in the year 1999 where the Des- ignation of the Defendant is shown as PPO ( Present property Occupant). Since as per the Plaintiff, the status of the defendant is that of the tres- passer and unauthorised occupant having no right to occupy the suit prop- erty much less raising unauthorised construction thereupon consequent upon the issuance of legal notice and getting no response of the same, the suit claiming possession, damages, mense profit and permanent injunction was instituted based upon the title of the Plaintiff.
38. As per the written statement, the title of the Plaintiff was challenged by the Defendants claiming that the Plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 18 /29 the suit property and also that the Plaintiff is not even in possession of the suit property. It was further claimed by the Defendants that they are in possession of the suit property in their own rights as owner thereof having purchased the same from Smt Jeet Kaur W/o Sardaar Sewa Singh ( previ- ous owner as per para 11 of WS) by virtue of GPA dated 21.07.1986 and since then the Defendants are in occupation of the suit property and enjoy- ing the suit property as exclusive owner thereof without any interference from any quarter. The Defendants in addition have also claimed ownership by adverse possession by claiming that the Defendants are in continuous and uninterrupted possession for the past 17 years and who vide para 11 of the WS have denied that the possession of the Defendants has to be shown hostile against the true owners or that the Plaintiffs are the true owners of the suit property. The Defendants besides the aforesaid have also denied that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the continuous and unauthorised oc- cupation of the Defendants. Thus as per the Defendants they are the exclu- sive owners of the suit property having purchased the same from the pre- vious owner ( Para 11 of the WS) and also that they are the owners by ad- verse possession (Para 11 of the WS).
39. From the perusal of the record, it is also apparent that based upon the aforesaid pleadings set up by the parties where relying upon their respec- tive titles, each party was claiming ownership of the suit property, the learned court of Civil Judge consequent upon the proving on record the registered sale certificate qua the suit property and also the partition deed qua the suit property held that the Plaintiff was able to prove the fact that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property.
40. The Learned Civil Judge also held that the Defendants were unable to prove their title to the suit property either by way of purchase of the same or by virtue of the adverse possession and neither the Defendants were RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 19 /29 able to prove that they have obtained possession of the suit property from the original tenant of the Ministry of Rehabilitation i.e Sh Kishan Singh by not filing document executed by Sh Kishan Singh in favour of Smt Jeet Kaur. The Learned Civil judge accordingly on the failure of the Defendant to prove any of his defences claiming title, came to the conclusion that the Defendant was not able to prove their ownership claimed on the basis of GPA (Ex DW 1/1) or the fact that Sh Kishan Singh or Smt Jeet Kaur had any authority to sell the same or that Smt Jeet Kaur was the Successor in interest of the original tenant (Kishan Singh) under the Ministry of Reha- bilitation or had acquired tenancy rights under Sh Kishan Singh.
41. The Learned Civil Judge on the other defenses set up by the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant has become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession came to the conclusion that the Defendant has taken the mutually destructive plea by firstly claiming to have become the owners of the suit property on the basis of having purchased the same and also by claiming ownership by way of adverse possession. It was held by the Learned Civil Judge that the Defendants have failed to plead and prove the said plea of adverse possession as against the Plaintiffs nor the Defen- dants were able to prove the fact that to their knowledge, the Plaintiff was the owner of the suit property or that the plaintiff had any knowledge about the occupation of the suit property by the Defendant in view of the admission made by DW-1 to the effect that the Plaintiff never visited the suit property prior to the institution of the suit.
42. The Learned Civil Judge held that the cause of action in the present suit arose from the date of the Plaintiff gaining knowledge about the unautho- rised occupation of the Defendants from the date of survey of the MCD conducted in the year 1999 where the name of the Defendant was not shown as one of the tenant in the original survey conducted by the MCD RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 20 /29 when the property was under the Rehabilitation Department and which status of survey report have not been disputed by the Defendants. Since the Defendants have not been able to show the knowledge of the Plaintiff with respect to the occupation of suit property or their claiming ownership adverse to the interests of the Plaintiffs prior to the year 1999, hence on the preponderance of probabilities it was rightly held by the Learned Civil Judge that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of possession based upon the title set up by the Plaintiffs.
43. In Shri Uttam Chand (D) through LRs Vs Nathu Ram (D) through LRs AIR 2020 SC 461 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in similar facts and on similar pleas as raised in the present suit/appeal after placing reliance in the matter of T Anjanappa & Ors vs Somalinjappa & Anr, Annasahab Bapusaheb Patil Vs Balwant, Kurella Naga Druva, Brijesh Kumar & Anr vs Sharbai (dead) by LRs, Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs Manjit Kaur, M Sad- diq Vs Mahant Suresh Dass & Ors has held that the mere continuous pos- session is not sufficient to constitute adverse possession and the same has also to be shown to be hostile to the true owner of the suit property. It was further held that animus possidendi is an essential element of the possessor to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. It was affirmed that animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required and mere long possession is not synonyms with adverse possession.
44. Accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid principals of law and the plead-
ings of the parties the contention of the appellant to the effect that Ld Trial Court has not considered the import of Section 27 of the Limitation Act to the effect that given the fact that the appellant was in possession of the suit property since the year 1986 and the present suit has been filed only the year 2001 and as such the appellant had perfected his rights by way of ad- verse possession and the rights of property if any belonging to the plaintiff RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 21 /29 stood extinguished since the plaintiff had not filed the suit within 12 years (Period of Limitation) is clearly misconceived since the Defendants in view of the clear findings returned by the Learned civil Judge were not aware as to the ownership of the Plaintiff and have defended the suit on the basis of their title acquired from Smt Jeet Kaur which too is contradic- tory to their stand of having become the owner by way of adverse posses- sion. The Defendants further in their written statement and more specifi- cally para 11 thereof have denied the fact that possession of the defendant has to be shown to be hostile against the true owner. Besides the aforesaid, the Defendants have clearly not been able to prove the fact that the Plain- tiff was aware about the occupation of the Defendants prior to the year 1999/2000. Thus the Defendants were unable to prove any of their mutu- ally destructive defences during the trial and on the other hand the Plain- tiff was able to prove the ownership on the basis of subsisting title. Since the defendants were unable to demonstrate holding of the possession hos- tile to the real owner and also the knowledge of the owner about the same as per their defence, their mere long possession cannot be said to have ripen into possessory title for want of the animus possidendi as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of T Anjanappa Vs Somalingappa & Others (2006)7 SCC 570, Brijesh Kumar & Anr Vs. Shardabai ( Dead) By LRs & Ors (2019) 9 SCC 369, Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao, M Radheshyam Ian Babu vs Sandhya & Ors . Since the defendants have failed to demonstrate their possession adverse to the title of the plain- tiff, it cannot be said that the period of limitation of 12 years as prescribed under Article 65 of the schedule to the limitation act began to run for want of the requisite animus and thus it cannot be said that the right of the plaintiff became extinguished since the period of prescription had not even commenced as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 22 /29 of Saroop Singh vs Banto ( 2005) 8 SCC 330. In view of the aforesaid dis- cussion, it is clear that the reliance placed by the appellant on the judg- ments of Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjeet Kaur, 2019, SCC 729, Sh. Balraj and anr vs. Sh. Rajbir and anr; 2016 SCC Online Del 3883, Lata Chauhan vs. L.S Bisht; 2010 (117) DRJ 715 is clearly mis placed since in the present case, the period of limitation did not commence. Accordingly, the finding returned by the Learned Civil Judge in as much as deciding is- sue No(s) 1 cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity in as much as hold- ing that the Defendant/ appellant herein has not been able to prove either their ownership either through perfection of title by way of adverse pos- session or otherwise.
45. In RE- the suit being barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 Learned Counsel for the Appellant has strongly contended that the suit of the Plaintiff was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was further contended by the counsel for the Appellants /defen- dants that the suit as filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable since the Plaintiffs have contended that the original defendant as well as her legal heirs came into possession after the same has been parted out by the origi- nal tenant as per the assessment record of the MCD of the year 1986 of Sh Kishan Singh who is the original Tenant of the Ministry of Rehabilitation from whom the predecessor in interest of the Defendants had purchased the suit property, hence there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant and accordingly the suit is not maintainable in view of section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with section 50 of the Delhi Rent Con- trol Act.) However, a bare perusal of the Plaint shows that the basis of filing of the Plaint as specifically stated in para 7 thereof whereby the Plaintiff has RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 23 /29 stated that the suit is being filed on the basis of unauthorised occupation of the Defendant taking the unauthorised occupation from the survey re- port of the MCD conducted in the year 1999. As per para 8 of the Plaint, the Plaintiffs have clearly stated that the status of the defendant is that of a trespasser and unauthorised occupant and has no right to be in the portion under her tenancy.
46. Thus from the aforesaid it is clear that the plaintiff has nowhere stated in the plaint that the original defendant as well as her legal heirs came into possession after the same has been parted out by the original tenant as per the assessment record of the MCD of the year 1986 of Sh Kishan Singh who is the original Tenant of the Ministry of Rehabilitation from whom the predecessor in interest of the Defendants had purchased the suit property hence there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant. This fact was pleaded by the defendant in his defence.
47. The Defendant in her written statement has taken yet another mutually de-
structive defense that the original tenant under the Ministry of Rehabilita- tion i.e Sh Kishan Singh parted with the possession of the suit property in the year 1986 in favour of predecessor in interest of the Defendants from whom the Defendants have purchased the same. It is thus the contention of the Defendants that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant be- tween the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The defendant in the present case has set up all possible defenses available under the law without any appli- cation of mind and without appreciating the fact that all the defenses as set up by her are mutually destructive to each other. The defendant firstly pleaded that she is in possession of the suit property within her own right as owner thereof by purchasing the same from one Smt Jeet Kaur W/o Sarder Sewa Singh r/o H No 2453, Basti Punjabian, Subzi Mandi, Delhi vide virtue of GPA dt 21.07.1986 executed by her in favour of the defen-
RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 24 /29dant. The defendant further has taken the plea that one Sh. Kishan Singh was the tenant in respect of his portion of the suit property and who used to pay rent to the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Custodian of Evacuee Property which property was auctioned by the Ministry of Rehabilitation on 05.08.1955. The Defendant has further submitted that Sh. Kishan Singh sold his rights to Smt. Jeet Kaur, w/o Sh. Sewa Singh who thereafter trans- ferred the rights in favour of the present defendant by virtue of GPA dated 21.07.1986 and since thereafter the defendant is in possession and occupa- tion thereof as an exclusive owner. The Defendant in the present case could not prove the transfer of tenancy rights by Sh Kishan Singh in respect of the suit property in favour of Smt Jeet Kaur. The Defendant thus failed to establish her defense that Sh Kishan Singh had transferred his rights in favour of Smt Jeet Kaur. The Learned civil judge taking into account the fact that the Defendant has take a mutually destructive plea has further held that no document has been filed by the Defendant to substantiate that Sh Kishan Singh had in fact transferred the tenancy rights to Smt Jeet Kaur and had accordingly held that the defendant failed to prove his defense that the Defendants are the sub lessee of the Plaintiffs. Thus the Learned Civil Judge has held that the Defendants have failed to prove the fact that she became the tenant of the Ministry of Rehabilitation initially and there- after of the Plaintiff by attornment.
48. Accordingly, it was held that the defendant has failed to prove any of the mutually destructive defences i.e first of her being the exclusive owner secondly of her having become the owner by way of adverse possession and thirdly her being the Sub tenant enjoying the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. The Learned Civil Judge on the failure on the part of the Defendant to prove the alleged tenancy/ sub tenancy, thus rightly RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 25 /29 held that the suit as filed by the Plaintiff is not barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
49. The plea of the suit being barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is mutually destructive of the defence of the appellant/defendant who on one hand has claimed title in herself by way of purchase of suit property and also on the basis of adverse possession. Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is reproduced herein below for a ready reference as follows:
"50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters.
(1)Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shalt be- granted by any civil court or other authority. (2)If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is any suit or proceeding pending in any civil court for the eviction of any tenant from any premises to which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, such suit or proceeding shall, on such commencement, abate.
(3)If, in pursuance of any decree or order made by a court, any tenant has been evicted after the 16th day of August, 1958, from any premises to which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within six months from the date of eviction, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit.
(4)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises."
50. A bare perusal of Section 50 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act shows that the said Section is applicable when the parties are in a relation of landlord and tenant and the plaintiff is seeking the eviction of a tenant. As per RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 26 /29 Section 50 (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, no bar has been created upon the civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which the act applies. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of title and by alleging the defendant to be an authorized occuptant.
51. In order to appreciate the applicability of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, it would be relevant to refer to Section 111 (g) the Transfer of Property Act which is reproduced for ready reference as follow:
111. Determination of lease- A lease of immovable property determines:
(a) ...
(b)...
(c) ....
(d)...
(e) ...
(f) ....
(g) by forfeiture; that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter 1[*]; or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; 2[or (3) the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event]; and in [any of these cases] the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease;'
52. Vide Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end the moment the tenant denies the title of the landlord. Keeping in view the fact that under the Delhi Rent Control Act, a protection is given to a tenant only against eviction and once a person/tenant disputes the ownership of his landlord or instead claims ownership in himself, he ceases to be a tenant in the eyes of law. A person/tenant upon claiming title in himself by virtue of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, ceases to be a tenant and his lease stands forfeited by operation of law and who cannot be permitted to plead that he be extended the benefits extended to a tenant upon forfeiture of tenancy. In view of the same and in view of the defendant having set up a title as RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 27 /29 owner in himself, the protection as afforded by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, if any, stood withdrawn and the present which has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant stating that the defendant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit property is maintainable before the Ld Civil Court and the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
53. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Naeem Ahmed Vs Yashpal Malhotra (deceased) through LRs & Anr in similar set of circumstances has held that the suit of the nature as filed by the plaintiff is well maintainable before the Civil Court and Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act has no application.
54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kurella Naga Druva Vudya Bhaskara Rao Vs Galla Jani Kamma Alias Nacharamma, 2008 (11) SCALE 160 while affirming the decision rendered in the case of Abdulla Bin Ali Vs Glappa (1985) 2 SCC 54 held that the suit treating the defendants as trespassers on the ground of the denial of title would only lie in a civil court and not in the revenue court under the tenancy act.
55. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the contention of the appellant to the effect that the suit is barred by virtue of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is without any merit and the reliance placed by the appellant on judgments i.e. Singer India Ltd vs. Chander Mohan Chadha and others (2004) 7 SCC 1, M/s Parasram Harnand Rao vs. M/s Shanti Parsad Narender Kumar Jain and anr (1980) 3 SCC 565, Fab India Overseas Pvt Ltd vs. S.N Sheupuria 2013 SCC Online Del 404, Suhash Chand Goel and others vs. Hans Raj Gupta and Company Pvt Ltd, 2019 SCC Online Del 9890 is clearly misplaced and which are distinguishable on facts since in all the cited cases, the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted and in none of the cited cases, there is any application of Section 111(g) of the Transfer RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 28 /29 of Property Act on the ground of setting up of title thereby amounting to forfeiture of tenancy.
54. In view of the aforesaid, no infirmity can be said to have arisen in the order/judgment dt 17.03.2018 as passed by Ld Civil Judge. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merits is dismissed.
55. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. TCR be sent back alongwith the copy of the this judgment.
Announced in the (Sachin Sood)
open Court on 28.10.2024. DJ-01 (Central)
THC, Delhi.
RCA No. 67/2018 Shakuntala vs. Jagjit Singh Sawhney Page No. 29 /29