Delhi District Court
R/O 6A vs Sh. Satish Chandra Raman on 11 March, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE03 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
RCA No.3/2009
In the matter of :
S. V. Anand
S/o Sh. S. R. Anand
R/o 6A, PocketR,
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi - 110 095. .....Appellant / Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Satish Chandra Raman
S/o Sh. Prakash Chandra Raman
R/o 3297, Ram Nagar,
Mandoli Road, Shahdara,
Delhi - 110 032. .....Respondent / Defendant
ID No. : 02402C0862032009
Date of Institution : 02.01.2009
Date of arguments heard : 25.02.2010
Date of order : 11.03.2010
2
J U D G ME N T
1. The appellant / plaintiff has filed the appeal against the order dated 10.12.08 passed by Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, East whereby plaint was rejected u/o 7 rule 11(d) CPC.
2. The appellant / plaintiff has filed the appeal on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated rent deed dated 25.03.08 as respondent / defendant has admitted his tenancy in Para 1 of Written Statement. The threats extended to the appellant were not taken into consideration. Ld. Trial Court did not critically examine and perused the plaint with respect to the maintainability of the suit.
3. The notice of the appeal was given to the respondent who alleged that the appeal is without any merit which is filed with malafide intention to create a false evidence against him.
4. The facts of the case are like this. The plaintiff (herein appellant) has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant (herein respondent) with the averments that he has been in possession of the Flat No.6A, PocketR, Dilshad Garden, Delhi (herein after referred to suit 3 property) since 25.03.08 as tenant. The suit property was given for residential cum commercial purposes. A rent deed dated 25.03.08 was executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 wherein date 25.03.07 was inadvertently reflected. The defendant No.1, later on, agreed to sell the suit property to him for Rs.11 lacs out of which he paid Rs.4 lacs to the plaintiff. It was agreed that he will pay balance amount on or before the expiry of six months from the date of agreement dated 14.05.08. He arranged the amount of Rs.7 lacs and requested defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed who avoided one pretext or other. A legal notice dated 26.06.08 was given to the defendant No.1 who started harassing him and also made frivolous complaint dated 03.07.08 with PS, Seemapuri. Police, PS, Seemapuri visited his house on 06.07.08 at 2:30 PM and misbehaved with his father in law and children in his absence. On 07.07.08 defendant No.1 along with his associates and again threatened his father in law and children as he was away to his duty. He gave a detailed reply on 11.07.08 to the complaint of the defendant no.1. The police instead of taking action started threatening him with dire consequences and to produce the original 4 documents failing which he will be put behind the bars. On 14.07.08 a notice was given by defendant No.2 to appear at PS along with documents. He appeared in the PS with documents and witnesses but he was again threatened to vacate the suit property. On 17.07.08 defendant No.1 and his associates came to the suit property and tried to throw his goods from the suit property but couldn't succeed due to intervention of the local persons. The defendants have been threatening to dispossess him from the suit property. Hence, this suit.
5. The defendant No.1 contested and resisted the suit by filing the written statement wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability on the ground that equally efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiff, locus standi, concealment of facts, cause of action, valuation and fabrication of documents are taken. On merits, it is averred that suit property was let out on rent to the plaintiff who has not paid the rent from the day of inception of tenancy. He never agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.11 lacs. It is wrong that plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.4 lacs to them and balance was to be paid on or before the expiry of agreement 5 dated 14.05.08. It is admitted that a legal notice dated 26.06.08 was received. It is wrong that he was to execute sale deed of suit property in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of receipt of notice. It is wrong that a false complaint was lodged on 03.07.08 with police, PS, Seemapuri. It is wrong that defendant No.2 visited the house of the plaintiff and threatened father in law of the plaintiff and minor children in the absence of plaintiff. It is denied that on 07.07.08 he along with his associates threatened the father in law of the plaintiff and minor children in the absence of plaintiff and his wife. It is wrong that defendant No.2 gave a notice dated 14.07.08 to the plaintiff to appear at PS, Seemapuri at 5:00 PM. It is wrong that on 17.07.08 he and his associates tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property by throwing his goods. The allegations of the plaintiff are false.
6. The plaintiff filed the replication wherein he has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint.
7. The defendant No.2 was deleted from the array of parties on 06.08.08 by Ld. Trial Court.
6
8. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the arguments hold that suit is not maintainable and plaint is liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11(d) CPC.
9. I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case.
10. Ld. counsel for the appellant contended that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the rent agreement dated 25.03.07 by virtue of which he was inducted as tenant. Heard and perused the record. It is correct that appellant was inducted as tenant by the respondent by executing rent agreement dated 25.03.07. The appellant has alleged that respondent has executed an agreement dated 14.05.08 in his favour in order to sell the suit property for Rs.11 lacs out of which Rs.4 lacs were received by the respondent. Now, the appellant cannot draw any support from the rent agreement because that agreement allegedly does not subsist in view of the alleged agreement dated 14.05.08. He has claimed his status as that of alleged purchaser rather than as a tenant so Ld. Trial Court was right by not looking into the rent agreement dated 25.03.07.
11. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that he is entitled to the 7 injunction on the basis of his possession. Ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit has become infructuous in view of the provisions of section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act as injunction cannot be granted where equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other mode.
12. Heard and perused the record. Section 41(h) reads as under : Where equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceedings except in case of breach of trust.
13. I find force in the submissions of Ld. counsel for the respondent. The court has to see whether the suit for permanent injunction can continue when the relief of Specific Performance of the contract under the agreement dated 14.05.08 can be obtained by the appellant. The agreement dated 14.05.08 shows that the balance amount of Rs.7 lacs was to be paid on or before six months from 14.05.08. The appellant has allegedly paid Rs.4 lacs. He has issued a notice dated 26.06.08 to the respondent on the basis of the agreement dated 14.05.08 and called upon the respondent to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount 8 within one month of the receipt of the notice otherwise, he will file a suit against him. The suit was filed by the appellant on 21.07.08. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to claim a relief of specific performance of agreement dated 14.05.08 after one month from notice dated 26.06.08. The appellant is entitled to another equally efficacious relief. The suit for permanent injunction cannot proceed when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by the appellant by way of filing the suit for specific performance of agreement dated 14.05.08. The suit for permanent injunction simplicitor is not maintainable. I have drawn support from Satish Bahadur Vs. Hans Raj, AIR 1980 Punjab & Haryana 351.
14. I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 10.12.08 passed Ld. Trial Court. The appeal filed by the appellant is without any merits and accordingly same is dismissed with no order as to the cost. Decree Sheet be prepared. TCR be sent back along with copy of this judgment. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open SURESH KUMAR GUPTA court on 11.03.10 ADJ03 (East) / KKD / 11.03.10