Delhi District Court
Daljit Kaur Saund vs . Ranbir Singh Etc. on 29 July, 2009
Page No. 1 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR : ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGEcum ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLER :
(NORTH) DELHI.
In Re : Suit No. 1900/2008.
Old Suit No. 3437/1990.
1.Smt. Daljit Kaur Saund, Wd/o S. Tripatjit Singh Saund, 592, GreatWEst Road, Hounslow TWS OTH Middlesex (U.K.) Plaintiff.
Versus.
1. Sh. Ranbir Singh Saund, S/o Late Sh. Tara Singh Saund, Apartment No. 10, 'W' Block, Building No. 14, Greater KailashII, New Delhi.
2. Ms. Jasleen Saund, 592, GreatWEst Road, Hounslow TWS OTH Middlesex (U.K.)
3. S. Nazar Singh, Attorney of Maharwal Khewti Trust, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi. Defendants.
Contd...
Page No. 2 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc.
Date of Institution of Suit : 09.11.1990.
Date on which Order was reserved : 11.07.2009. Date of Pronouncement of Order : 29.07.2009.
JUDGMENT.
The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of Rs. 25,000/ as disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint are that the quarter nos. F6 and F7 situated in Faridkot Lane in the backside of Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi are duly shown in the site plan as A2 and the inside portion of the said quarters have been shown in the site plan as A3 and the location of the Faridkot House (Palace), the lane and the barracks has been shown in the site plan as A1. It has been further submitted that the estate Faridkot House belongs to a Trust known as Maharwal Khewti Trust and the defendant no. 3 is looking after it as its Manager and as Attorney of the Trust and further that Contd...
Page No. 3 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. defendant no. 3 has been impleaded only as a proforma defendant. It has been stated further that the said quarter bearing nos. F6 and F7 were taken on rent by S. Tara Singh, father of the husband of the plaintiff and father of the defendant no.1. It has been stated further that the plaintiff was married to S. Tripatjit Singh in December, 1961 and at that time S. Tripatjit Singh was residing in the rented quarter nos. F6 and F7. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff and her husband stayed in the said premises till 1969 when they shifted to London. It has been stated further that defendant no. 1, elder brother of S. Tripatjit Singh was previously employed in a Tea Estate in Assam from 1960 to 1989 and he lived in Assam till 1989 and after his retirement in 1989 he settled down in Delhi and started living in his own apartment no. 10, W Block, Building No. 14, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi. It has been further submitted that in 1969 the plaintiff's husband got employed in England and the plaintiff also got employment as a teacher in London and they shifted to England. It Contd...
Page No. 4 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. has been further submitted that plaintiff and her husband used to visit Delhi during summer holidays almost every alternate year and stayed in Delhi for about six weeks. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff, however, did not visit India after 1984 until this time. It has been stated further that husband of the plaintiff expired on 24.03.1988 in London and the plaintiff was left forlorn. It has been stated further that in May 1989 Ms. Jasleen, daughter of the plaintiff visited India and learnt about the death of S. Tara Singh Saund on 12.02.1989 and communicated the same to the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that this time the plaintiff came to India on 13.09.1990 and went to the premises in dispute for stay but was taken aback to find that all her belongings were missing and the defendant no. 1's daughter Ms. Rupinder Kaur (nick name Dimple) was carrying on the business of Employment Agency in the name of Career Dimensions and she was advertising her business in papers and the plaintiff has given the details of the advertisement published in the Hindustan Times, got Contd...
Page No. 5 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. published by Ms. Rupinder Kaur. It has been further submitted that the tenancy rights in the demised premises vested in S. Tara Singh Saund and after his death they devolved on the defendant no. 1 and S. Tripatjit Singh's legal heirs namely the plaintiff and her daughter Ms. Jasleen Kaur, who is at present studying in a college in London. It has been stated further that defendant no. 1 alone is not entitled to the tenancy rights, which vested in S. Tara Singh till the time of his death. It has been further alleged that defendant no. 1 is a usurper and is guilty of breach of trust as he has acted clandestinely and over reached the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff had left certain articles in the quarter nos. F6 and F7 when she left it last in 1984 and the same are as under :
1. Radiogram (grunding) with cabinet. Rs. 2000.
2. Refrigerator (Allwyn) Rs. 4000.
3. Two Ceiling Fans and one Pedestal fan. Rs. 1200.
4. Radio Cassette Rs. 1000.
Contd...
Page No. 6 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc.
5. Twoinone Stereo Radio Rs. 1200.
6. Beds / furniture Rs. 3000.
7. Personal clothes (for self husband and daughter) Rs. 6000.
Linen
8. Kitchen wares (cutlery, crockery, utensils, cooking Rs. 6600.
stove and electrical appliances)
It has been further submitted that the said articles belonged to the plaintiff alone and when the plaintiff asked the defendant no. 1 about the said articles, he told her that the same would be given to her only if she relinquished her claim to the house. It has been further alleged that the defendant no. 1 is liable either to return the aforesaid articles in species or to pay their market price, which comes to Rs. 25,000/ in all. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is now on the verge of premature retirement on medical grounds and she would like to spend more time in India after retirement for health and financial reasons. It has been further submitted that the rent of the house in dispute is about Rs. 100/ per Contd...
Page No. 7 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. men sum and the plaintiff is, in any case, entitled to joint possession of the suit premises. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is willing to have a reasonable portion of the house for her requirements leaving the rest for use by the defendant no. 1 and to foot the entire rent, if it comes to that. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of joint possession at Rs. 80,000/ and for the recovery of Rs. 25,000/ advelorem and the plaintiff has paid the court fees of Rs.5,225/.
It has been prayed that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1
(a) for Rs. 25,000/ with interest @ 18% per annum till the decretal amount is paid.
(b) for mandatory injunction that the defendant no. 1 and his agents or servants be directed to remove his belongings, if any, from the quarters no. F6 and F7 for prohibitory injunction, restraining the said defendant, his agents, representatives and employees from Contd...
Page No. 8 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. preventing the plaintiff, her daughter, defendant no. 2 and their agents or representatives from entering the suit premises i.e. quarters no. F6 and F7 and using the same as per their requirements.
(c) that the defendant no. 1 be further restrained from allowing the premises in suit to be used for employment exchange business of any other business.
Plaintiff has further prayed that in the alternate to relief under clause (b), the plaintiff claims for joint possession of the suit property.
2. Written Statement has been filed on record by defendant no. 2 who is the daughter of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 has admitted the case of the plaintiff verbatim.
3. Written Statement has also been filed on record by the defendant no. 1 taking therein various preliminary objections such as that the defendant no. 1 is in exclusive possession of the suit property in his own rights as a tenant under defendant no. 3, the house agent of Contd...
Page No. 9 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. Faridkot House Estate, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi; that the defendant no. 1 is under no obligation towards the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable and infact the present suit is a suit for possession and the same has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and the suit should be valued at the market value of the property under Section 7(V) of the Court Fees Act and Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act. It has been further submitted that the market value of the property is Rs. 10 lakhs. It has been further submitted that defendant nos. 2 and 3 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.
On merits, it has been admitted that the barracks / outhouses are the part of the Faridkot House. It has been further admitted that late Sh. Tara Singh, father of the defendant no. 1 and fatherinlaw of the plaintiff had taken the quarter nos. F6 and F7 on rent from the Estate Manager, Faridkot House at a rental of Rs. 105/ Contd...
Page No. 10 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. per month. It has been further submitted that he opened two doors to have access to each of these quarters. It has been further submitted that quarter nos. 6 to 9 constitute one barrack. It has also been admitted that all the barracks / quarters except F6 and F7 are now being used for residential purposes only. It is also admitted that the defendant no. 3 is looking after the estate known as Faridkot House and he is realizing rent for various quarters. It has been further submitted that Sh. Tara Singh Saund, father of the defendant no. 1 was living in railway government quarters at Babar Road, New Delhi and in the year 195152 he took quarters nos. F6 and F7 on rent from the Estate Manager, Faridkot House and shifted his residence to the said quarters and simultaneously, he started an automobile workshop under the name of Metropolitan Garage. It has been further submitted that defendant no. 1 used to work with his father in the said garage and at that garage he was also carrying on the business of sale and purchase of second hand cars besides repairs of automobiles. It Contd...
Page No. 11 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. has been further submitted that the said garage was closed down in 195657 as the possession of the land was taken by the government who was the owner of the said land. It has been further submitted that after the closure of the said garage, Sh. Tara Singh Saund carried on the business of sale and purchase of used cars from quarter nos. F6 and F7, Faridkot House, where he himself with his wife and two sons (defendant no. 1 and Tripatjit Singh) was living. It has been further submitted that defendant no.1 lived there till 1958 and thereafter he joined employment as Service Engineer with M/s Escorts in 1955. It has been further submitted that defendant no. 1 lived in the premises in question till 1958 and thereafter he was living at various stations of his postings. It has been further submitted that the defendant no. 1 was married at Delhi in 1959 and at that time he was posted at Dhanbad. It has been further submitted that S. Tripatjit Singh continued to live with his father in quarter nos. F6 and F7 as a member of the family and S. Tripatjit Singh was married to the Contd...
Page No. 12 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. plaintiff in December, 1961 and the plaintiff resided in quarter no. F7 alongwith her husband as a member and under the head of the family, Sh. Tara Singh Saund. It has been further submitted that defendant no. 1 in the year 1961 joined service at Tea Estate in Assam and he was in Assam till March, 1989 when he retired from that service. It has been further submitted that defendant no. 1 used to come to Delhi off and on and more especially during holidays and lived with his father in quarter nos. F6 and F7. It has been further submitted that after the closure of the garage, Sh. Tripatjit Singh started working in a petrol pump and after some time he left this employment and joined his father in the business of sale / purchase of used cars and in breakdown service. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff and S. Tripatjit Singh left for UK for better financial prospects and they acquired British citizenship and found employment in UK. It has been further submitted that S. Tripatjit Singh died in UK on 24.03.1988 as a British national. It has been further submitted that the Contd...
Page No. 13 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. plaintiff has also acquired a big residential building in London. It has been further alleged that neither S. Tripatjit Singh nor the plaintiff had any tenancy rights in the tenanted premises. It has been further submitted that Sh. Tara Singh died on 12.02.1989 and his wife Smt. Harbans Kaur had predeceased him in January, 1984. It has been further submitted that no tenancy rights were acquired by S. Tripatjit Singh or by the plaintiff at any time. It has been stated further that defendant no. 1 returned to Delhi on his retirement in March, 1989 and started to reside with his family at his apartment no. 10, W Block, Building no. 14, Greater KailashII, New Delhi, which was owned by him. It has been further submitted that quarter nos. F6 and F7 were kept locked after the death of Sh. Tara Singh and a fresh tenancy of said quarters was obtained by defendant no.1 from defendant no. 3 w.e.f. 01.07.1989 and a receipt for the payment of rent was issued in his name by defendant no. 3. It has been further submitted that on creation of fresh tenancy, the previous tenancy in favour of Sh. Tara Contd...
Page No. 14 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. Singh Saund stood impliedly surrendered to the landlord and a fresh tenancy came in to existence. It is admitted by the answering defendant that plaintiff and her husband used to visit Delhi during summer holidays almost every alternate year and stay at the suit premises for about 6 weeks each time. It has been further admitted that the plaintiff did not visit India after 1984 and she came to India only in OctoberNovember, 1990 and stayed at the house of her brother near Ashram, New Delhi. It has also been admitted that S. Tripatjit Singh died in London on 24.03.1988. It is denied that the plaintiff left any articles in the quarters in question, which she alleged to be missing on her return. It has been admitted that Ms. Rupinder Kaur, daughter of defendant no. 1 is carrying on the business of employment agency in the quarters in question under the name and style of Career Dimensions and she has been advertising her business in newspaper also. It has been further submitted that neither the plaintiff nor her husband had paid any rent. It has been further Contd...
Page No. 15 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. submitted that the plaintiff and her daughter are British national and they have no right to hold any property in India without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India and no payment of rent or any other payment on their behalf can be made by any other person to the landlord without committing an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Rest of the contents of plaint have been denied by the defendant no. 1 and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
4. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the Written Statement of defendant no. 1 denying the contents of the Written Statement and reaffirming and reiterating the contents of the plaint.
5. From of the pleadings of the parties, on 06.07.2005, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has framed the following issues :
ISSUES:
Contd...
Page No. 16 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. (1) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP.
(2) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD. (3) Whether the tenancy of the premises in suit was inherited by the legal representatives of Tripat Singh alongwith defendant no. 1 after the death of Tara Singh? OPP.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of any of the movables mentioned in para no. 8 of the plaint? If so, what is their valuation?
OPP.
(5) Relief.
6. In support of their respective cases, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW 1 and Sh. Inderjeet Singh as PW 2, and the defendant no. 1 has examined himself as DW 1. The detailed testimony of these witnesses shall be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
7. The only contested defendant remained defendant no. 1 as the plaintiff has herself asserted that defendant no. 3 is merely a proforma party. Defendant no. 2 and 3 remained exparte and none of Contd...
Page No. 17 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. them came forward to lead any evidence or to address final arguments.
Both i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 have also filed on record the written final arguments in support of their respective cases.
8. I have gone through the entire material on record and have heard the rival submissions as advanced by both the Ld. Counsels for the parties orally as well as in the shape of written final arguments filed on record.
My issuewise findings on the issues framed in the present suit are as under :
ISSUE No. 1 : Defendant no. 1 has taken an objection in the Written Statement that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. It has been submitted that the careful Contd...
Page No. 18 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. perusal of the plaint reveals that the present suit is in fact a suit for possession. It has been further submitted that the value of the aforesaid two quarters which are the subject matter of the present suit, is about Rs. 10 lacs.
It is true that the title of the plaint reads that the present suit is a suit for mandatory injunction as well as for recovery of Rs.25,000/ but in para no. 12 of the plaint the present suit has been valued at Rs. 80,000/ for the purposes of jurisdiction for relief of joint possession and injunction and court fees of Rs. 3,125/ has been paid by the plaintiff and for the relief of recovery of Rs. 25,000/ the court fees of Rs. 2,100/ has been paid.
If the evidence of the parties is carefully gone through, it becomes evidently clear that defendant no. 1 had not led any evidence to show that the value of the suit property is Rs. 10 lacs, as is claimed by defendant no. 1 in the Written Statement. As such, I am of the opinion that defendant no. 1 has failed to bring home the point that the Contd...
Page No. 19 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. value of the suit property is Rs. 10 lacs.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1. ISSUE No. 2 : Defendant no. 1 has taken an objection in the Written Statement that the present suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties. It has been further submitted that defendant no. 2 and 3 are unnecessary parties.
It has to be seen that the plaintiff has clearly stated in the plaint that defendant no. 3 is merely a proforma party. Otherwise also, S. Tara Singh, father in law of the plaintiff and father of the defendant no. 1, was the original tenant with respect of quarter nos. F6 and F7 under the tenancy of defendant no. 3. Defendant no. 3 is the landlord of the premises in question.
Defendant no. 2 is the daughter of the plaintiff and plaintiff has arrayed her as defendant no. 2 in the array of defendants Contd...
Page No. 20 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. and no relief has been sought for by the plaintiff against the defendant no. 2 as well.
It has to be seen further that the plaintiff herself as well as the defendant no. 2 claim that they have inherited the tenancy rights in respect of the suit property after the death of S. Tripatjit Singh. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 are the legal heirs of late S. Tripatjit Singh, who was the husband of the plaintiff and father of the defendant no. 2. As such, I am of the opinion that defendant no. 1 has failed to point out as to how the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties.
Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1. ISSUE No. 3 : The factual matrix in the present suit is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that late Sh. Tara Singh, father of defendant no. 1 and Contd...
Page No. 21 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. father in law of the plaintiff, had taken on rent the suit property from defendant no. 3. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff and her daughter i.e. defendant no. 2 are the legal heirs of S. Tripatjit Singh, who was one of the sons of late Sh. Tara Singh and who was the brother of defendant no. 1. It is also not in dispute rather admitted by defendant no. 1 in the Written Statement that plaintiff got married with S. Tripatjit Singh in the year 1961 and thereafter the plaintiff alongwith her husband shifted to UK where they were gainfully employed. It is also admitted by defendant no. 1 that the plaintiff and her husband used to visit Delhi during summer holidays and they used to reside in the tenanted property / suit property with late Sh. Tara Singh. It is also not in dispute that S. Tripatjit Singh died in the year 1988 in UK and Sh. Tara Singh expired in the year 1989 in Delhi. It is also not in dispute that Sh. Harbans Kaur, mother of defendant no. 1 and the mother in law of plaintiff, had predeceased late Sh. Tara Singh. It has also been admitted by defendant no. 1 as is apparent from the cross Contd...
Page No. 22 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. examination that defendant no. 1 was gainfully employed with a Tea Estate in Assam and he remained employed there till retirement and thereafter he returned to Delhi and started residing in his own apartment no. 10, W Block, Building No. 14, Greater KailashII, Newe Delhi. It has been submitted by the defendant no. 1 that after the death of Sh. Tara Singh, a fresh tenancy was created on 01.07.1989 in the name of the defendant no. 1. It is also not in dispute that Ms. Rupinder daughter of defendant no. 1 is carrying on the business of employment exchange in the suit property.
The crux of the controversy in between the parties to the suit is that as to whether the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 who are the legal heirs of late Sh. Tripatjit Singh acquired any tenancy rights in the tenanted property or not. Defendant no. 1 has taken the stand the after the death of late Sh. Tara Singh, he obtained a fresh tenancy in his name from defendant no. 3 and rent receipt to that effect was executed by defendant no. 3 and as such tenancy in favour of late Sh.
Contd...
Page No. 23 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. Tara Singh stood impliedly surrendered.
Whereas, on the other hand, the stand of the petitioner is that tenancy in favour of late Sh. Tara Singh was never surrendered. It has been further argued by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 and Sh. Tripatjit Singh, both being the sons of late Sh. Tara Singh inherited the tenancy rights and now as Sh. Tripatjit Singh had expired, the tenancy rights devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 being his legal heirs. This is the entire crux of controversy in the present suit.
In the written final arguments filed on record by the plaintiff, it has been argued that DW 1 in his crossexamination has admitted that the plaintiff had been coming to Delhi off and on, and as and when the plaintiff and her husband visited Delhi, they stayed at the suit property. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff by way of written final arguments filed on record had further argued that an application was moved by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1 on 10.02.1993 Contd...
Page No. 24 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. alongwith interrogatories and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. M.K. Sharma, allowed the interrogatories as mentioned at Sr. No. 1012 vide orders dated 25.08.1998. It has been argued further that defendant no. 1 while answering the interrogatories in the form of affidavit dated 19.09.1998 admitted the following facts :
(a) The quarter no. F6 and F7 were not vacated or surrendered at any point of time to the landlord.
(b) The rent of the quarters was paid by the father till June 1989 and I have not informed the plaintiff in respect of the change of the name in tenancy.
(c) I never entered into any agreement with plaintiff for taking premises on rent. I inherited the tenancy.
It has been submitted further that by the cross examination of DW 1, the plaintiff has been able to clearly point out and to prove on record that the plaintiff and her daughter inherited the tenancy rights.
Contd...
Page No. 25 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. Whereas in the written final arguments filed on record by the defendant no. 1, it has been argued that a fresh tenancy of the suit premises was obtained by defendant no. 1 w.e.f. 01.07.1989 and on creation of fresh tenancy, the previous tenancy in favour of Sh. Tara Singh stood impliedly surrendered to the landlord. It has been argued further that plaintiff and defendant no. 2 never paid rent to the landlord and they did not have any intention to come back to India as they are the national of UK and had obtained the British citizenship. Ld. counsel for the defendant no. 1 in the written final arguments has relied upon the definition of "Tenant" as contained in Section 2(I) of the DRC Act. It has been argued further that provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not be applicable to the present case. It has been argued further that the Hindu Succession Act is the general Act and the Delhi Rent Control Act is the special Act and the provisions of General Act do not override the Special Act.
Ld. counsel for the defendant no. 1 has relied upon the Contd...
Page No. 26 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. following authorities and had argued that :
(i)In AIR 1931 Madra 152 titled as Corporation of Madras vs. Madras Electric Tram Ways Ltd. it was held that having made the General Act, the Legislature afterwards makes a special Act in conflict with it then it is assumed that the Legislature had in mind its own general Act when it made the Special Act. The provisions of General Act do not override the Special Act.
(ii) In 1963 S.C. 1077 titled Patna Improvement Trust vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, it was held that the law on the subject is very well settled. The first principle is generalia speciali bus non derogant is exemplied by the decision of the Privy Council in Secretary of State vs. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society.
(iii) In AIR 1931 P.C. 149 it has held that a General Act must yield to a special Act dealing with a specific matter.
(iv) In 1966 SC 1347 titled as CIT vs. Kkudi Lall Govind Ram Saksaria it was held that the maxim "Generalia Speciali bus, non Contd...
Page No. 27 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. derogant means that when there is a conflict between a general and a special provision, the latter should prevail.
It has been further argued by Ld. counsel for defendant no.1 that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
I have already stated that much of the factual matrix is admitted in between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. The controversy which has to be resolved, appears to be more legal than factual. PW 1 and PW 2 have been cross examined at length but nothing material has come out from the mouth of these witnesses so as to be of any help in resolving the controversy as to whether after the death of S. Tripatjit Singh, who was the son of Sh. Tara Singh, the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 inherited the tenancy rights or not.
Defendant no. 1 has examined himself as DW 1 and in his crossexamination DW 1 has stated that his brother had died in the month of March, 1988 and no one informed him about the death of his brother. DW 1 has stated further that he was continuously in Contd...
Page No. 28 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. correspondence with his brother but he does not have any letter written to him by his brother or the plaintiff. DW 1 has admitted in the crossexamination that as and when the plaintiff and her husband visited Delhi they stayed at the suit property. DW 1 has admitted that the plaintiff and S. Tripatjit Singh were married in 1961 and they left for England in 1969 and during this period they were living at the suit property. DW 1 has stated that he has no idea as to how many times the plaintiff came to India after the death of her husband and where did she stay. DW 1 has stated further in the crossexamination that his daughter Rupinder Kaur wanted to start business in the suit property and he was interested in getting the tenancy changed in his name. DW 1 has stated further that he did not seek consent of the plaintiff in this regard and he did not inform the plaintiff that the tenancy of the suit property had been made in his name. DW 1 has stated further that he did not request Nazar Singh, defendant no. 3 to create tenancy in favour of Rupinder Kaur. DW 1 has stated further Contd...
Page No. 29 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. that defendant no. 3 created tenancy in his favour because he knew him. DW 1 has stated that he does not know that after the death of his father, the tenancy should have gone in favour of his brother and himself. DW 1 has stated further that the tenancy was created in his favour in the July, 1989 and he started paying rent thereafter and he had not given any application in writing to the Trust (owner of the property) to create tenancy in his favour. DW 1 has stated further that it was an oral agreement in between him and Nazar Singh. It has been stated further by DW 1 that Nazar Singh did not ask for any increase in the rent.
It has to be seen that from the aforesaid cross examination of DW 1 coupled with the answers submitted by defendant no. 1 in the form of affidavit in response to the interrogatories which were supplied to him in consequence of the orders dated 25.08.1998 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. M.K. Sharma, while allowing the application u/O 11 Rule 1 CPC filed by Contd...
Page No. 30 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. the plaintiff herein, it becomes evidently clear that defendant no. 1 has clearly admitted that quarter nos. F6 and F7 were not vacated or surrendered at any point of time to the landlord. Defendant no. 1 in the affidavit dated 19.09.1998 has clearly stated that he has inherited the tenancy. In the crossexamination as well he has stated that the agreement was merely oral and he has not given any application to the landlord for change of the tenancy in his name.
It is the settled law that tenancy rights are inheritable. It is not in dispute that plaintiff and defendant no. 2 are the legal heirs of late S. Tripatjit Singh. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove that there was no implied surrender of the tenanted premises and no fresh tenancy was created in favour of defendant no. 1 by defendant no. 3. Defendant no. 1 has clearly admitted in the affidavit dated 19.09.1998 that he has inherited the tenancy. If the defendant no.1 has inherited the tenancy rights then why not the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 who are Contd...
Page No. 31 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. admittedly the legal heirs of late S. Tripatjit Singh?. As such, I decide issue no. 3 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1. ISSUE No. 4 : So far as issue no. 4 is concerned, PW 1 and PW 2 have been cross examined at length on this aspect of the matter. In the crossexamination PW 1 / plaintiff herself has stated that she cannot produce any receipt regarding the household goods left by her in the suit quarters because all these receipts were also left there. She has stated further that she did not make a report to the police regarding her household goods and the receipts regarding purchase thereof.
I am of the opinion that so far as the movable articles allegedly left by the plaintiff in the suit property are concerned, PW 1 and PW 2 have not been able to prove the same. As such, in my opinion, the plaintiff has not been able to prove issue no. 4 in her favour and accordingly issue no. 4 is decided against the plaintiff and Contd...
Page No. 32 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. in favour of defendant no. 1.
RELIEF: In view of my findings under issue no. 3, I hereby decree the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled for the joint possession of the suit property. It has to be seen that the prayer clauses (B) and (D) are in alternate and in the prayer clause (D) the plaintiff has sought for the relief of joint possession. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby deem it appropriate to decree the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of joint possession and the same is hereby decreed.
So far as the relief sought for by the plaintiff at point (C) for injunction is concerned, I am of the opinion that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff cannot be granted such relief and same is hereby dismissed.
Contd...
Page No. 33 Suit No. 1900/2008.
Daljit Kaur Saund vs. Ranbir Singh etc. Under Issue no. 4 I have already held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery of household articles allegedly left by the plaintiff and as such the relief under prayer clause (A) is declined.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today on 29th Day of July, 2009.
(RAJ KUMAR) ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE cumADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH) TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI.
Contd...