Delhi District Court
Manvir Sharma vs Saroj Sharma on 10 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms BHARTI GARG, CIVIL JUDGE
07 CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No. : 93405/2016
CNR No. : DLCT03-000007-1999
Date of Institution: 06.03.1999
Date of Reserving Judgment: 02.09.2023
Date of Decision: 10.10.2023
Sh. Manvir Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal,
R/o B-1751, Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi-110052.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Saroj Sharma
W/o Sh. Jyoti Pershad Sharma
R/o B-1736, Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi-110052.
..........Defendant
Suit for recovery of possession
JUDGMENT
1. This is the suit for recovery of possession of Halls forming part of the property bearing no. B-1736, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 (hereinafter, referred to as 'suit property' ), as depicted with red ink in the site plan annexed with the plaint (hereinafter, referred to as 'tenanted premises').
PLAINT:-
2. In nutshell, the case of plaintiff is that he is the owner/landlord of suit property and defendant is the tenant in two Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 1 of 16 halls at ground floor and first floor of the suit property, i.e. the tenanted premises at monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-. It is stated that defendant and her husband have illegally occupied another hall at the second floor of the suit property, in respect of which civil suit is already pending against the defendant. It is further averred that defendant is in arrears of rent since 01.04.1997 at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month which has neither been tendered nor paid by her despite repeated requests. Further, the defendant has not complied with the legal notice dated 08.01.1999 and also not handed over the physical possession of the tenanted premises despite service of notice of termination of tenancy. Therefore, the present suit has been filed seeking the relief as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the judgment.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
3. In her written statement, while admitting that she is the tenant of plaintiff in the tenanted premises, the defendant has taken the preliminary objections that the suit is barred under Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act as the monthly rate of rent is Rs.1,500/-, that the suit has been undervalued and adequate court fee has not been paid and that no notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was received by her. It is averred that defendant is running business in the name of Saroj Hosiery Factory on the ground floor and residing with her family on the first floor. It is pleaded that defendant had also paid collateral security of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff which was to be refunded at the time of vacation of tenanted premises but the plaintiff never issued any receipt for the same or for the rent. It is further averred that the plaintiff had Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 2 of 16 taken her signatures on blank papers and forged the rent agreement. It is further averred that the hall at second floor was also let out to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs.500/- for which refundable collateral security of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff. The defendant has been regularly paying the rent of Rs.1,000/- for the halls at ground and first floor of the suit property and Rs.500/- for hall at second floor of the suit property, however, the plaintiff has been threatening to illegally dispossess her from the suit property in order to harass and her husband, in respect of which a suit for permanent injunction is pending against him. Hence, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed.
REPLICATION:-
4. In pursuance of the written statement filed by defendants, plaintiff filed replication in which the averments of plaint have been reiterated and the allegations of written statement have been denied.
ISSUES:-
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 09.08.1999 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:-
Issue no.1- Whether the rent agreement dated 01.03.1997 was signed blank by the defendant? If so, its effect? OPD Issue no.2- Whether any notice of termination of tenancy was served upon the defendant and its effect? OPP Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 3 of 16 Issue no.3- Whether the rate of rent of the suit premises is Rs.4,500/-? OPP Issue no.4- Whether the suit property is valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and whether proper court fee has been paid? OPP Issue no.5- Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD Issue no.6- Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPP Issue no.7- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed? OPP Issue No.8- Relief.
6. Notably, issue no.4 was treated as preliminary issue, which was decided against the plaintiff by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 21.12.2002. Thereafter, the plaintiff corrected the suit valuation and paid the proper court fee in compliance with the directions contained in the aforesaid order.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:-
7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff namely Manvir Sharma stepped into the witness box and was examined as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1 and additional affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon following documents:
i. Ex.PW1/1- Site plan of tenanted premises. ii. Ex. PW1/2- Legal notice dated 08.01.1999. iii. Ex. PW1/3- Rent note dated 01.03.1997.Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 4 of 16
iv. Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. Ex. PW1/5- Postal receipts of registered cover of legal notice.
8. Further, Smt. Savita was examined as PW2, who tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW2/A. She was duly cross-examined by defendant whereafter, the plaintiff closed his evidence vide statement dated 25.03.2017.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE:-
9. On the other hand, the defendant namely Smt. Saroj Sharma was examined as DW1, who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. Similarly, Sh. Jagat Narayan Sharma and Sh. Yogesh Sharma were examined as DW2 and DW3 and tendered their affidavits of evidence as Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW3/A, respectively. Thereafter, evidence was closed by defendant vide statement dated 01.08.2017. The matter was then taken up for final arguments.
JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2017 of Ld. PREDECESSOR:-
10. The judgment was pronounced by Ld. Predecessor on 27.10.2017 whereby the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. Pertinently, issues no. 1,2 and 5 were decided against the defendant and in favor of plaintiff. However, issues no.3 and 6 were decided against the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the rate of rent was Rs.4,500/- and the suit was barred under Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act. Further, issues no.7 and 8 were decided against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was held to be not entitled to the relief claimed by him.
APPEAL AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2017:-
Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 5 of 1611. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2017 of Ld. Predecessor, which was allowed by Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 21.11.2019 and the matter was remanded back with the directions to- (i) conclude the cross-examination of PW1, (ii) grant one opportunity to the defendant to file any additional evidence, if so required, and (iii) pronounce the judgment thereafter.
EVIDENCE AFTER MATTER REMANDED BACK:-
12. In view of directions of Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 21.11.2019, sufficient opportunities were accorded to the defendant to cross-examine PW1. However, upon his failure to do so, his right in that regard was closed and the requirement to call for additional defence evidence was dispensed with by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 11.03.2022. However, the defendant filed an application u/S 151 CPC seeking one more opportunity to cross-examine PW1, which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor subject to cost vide order dated 02.06.2022, pursuant to which PW1 was cross-examined by defendant on 08.05.2023 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
13. Heard the parties. Perused the case file. The issue- wise adjudication and the findings of the Court are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1:-
14. The onus to prove this issue lies on the defendant. At the outset, the defendant has not denied the jural relationship of landlord-tenant with the plaintiff. Her primary objection is in respect of the monthly rate of rent at Rs.4,500/- as pleaded by Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 6 of 16 plaintiff. She has submitted that the rent, instead, was Rs.500/- per hall, i.e. total of Rs.1,000/-, and further that the rent agreement Ex.PW1/3 was manipulated and forged by plaintiff by mentioning the amount as Rs.4,500/- per month, since he had obtained her signatures on blank papers.
15. Now, the defendant has admitted in her cross- examination that the rent agreement bears her signatures. It is well-settled that once the execution of any document is admitted or proved, a presumption arises as to the knowledge of the contents thereof and the burden to rebut the presumption lies on the person who disputes the same. Reliance in that regard is placed upon the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Limited and another Vs. Agarwal Steel (2010) 1 SCC 83:-
"In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. In particular, businessmen, being careful people (since their money is involved) would have ordinarily read and understood a document before signing it. Hence the presumption would be even stronger in their case. There is no allegation of force or fraud in this case. Hence it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document Ex.D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake."
16. It is not the case of defendant that that any deception, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence was exercised by the plaintiff when she had signed those documents in blank signed manner. Besides, it has transpired in her deposition that she is the proprietor of Ms. Saroj Hosiery Factory, which is being run from the tenanted premises. Thus, It can be inferred that being involved in commercial activity, she would Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 7 of 16 not ordinarily execute any document before understanding it. Apart from the bald averment, no evidence has been led by her to substantiate the fact that her signatures were obtained on blank papers wherein inter alia, the amount of Rs.4,500/- was allegedly interpolated by the plaintiff.
17. Further, since DW2 Jagat Narayan Sharma and DW3 Yogesh Sharma, who are the sons of defendant, admitted in their respective cross-examinations that they did not witness the transaction, their testimonies lend no support to the case of defendant. Moreover, the defendant has identified the signatures of her husband Jyoti Prasad on the rent agreement as an attesting witness. If the document was blank, there was no reason why her husband would have signed the same. Admittedly, the defendant did not take any steps to lodge police complaint when she came to know that the plaintiff had misused the blank papers, which shrouds grave suspicion over her defence.
18. On the contrary, the plaintiff has examined PW2 Savita, to prove her signatures on the rent agreement as the second attesting witness thereto. No major inconsistency has surfaced in her cross-examination. As such, she has corroborated the case of plaintiff that the rent agreement was executed by both the parties in their presence. Keeping in view the facts and surrounding circumstances, the defendant has failed to discharge her onus to prove that her signatures were obtained on blank papers or that she is not aware of the contents of the rent agreement Ex.PW1/3. Consequently, issue no.1 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2:-
Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 8 of 1619. The onus to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff has relied upon the documents of legal notice dated 08.01.1999 Ex.PW1/2 and postal receipts Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5. However, the defendant has disputed the fact of receipt of notice of termination of tenancy. It is evident from legal notice Ex.PW1/2 that it does not refer to the tenanted premises at all. Rather, it appears to have been issued in respect of the alleged illegal occupation of the second floor of suit property to ask the defendant to vacate the same. Although the plaintiff has averred that another notice was sent to the defendant on 10.02.1999 for handing over the possession of tenanted premises, nonetheless, the same has not been adduced in evidence. Even otherwise, there is nothing to show that the postal receipts Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 are related to service of notice dt. 10.02.1999. In other words, there is no document to evince that the notice dated 10.02.1999 was sent to the defendant. Therefore, it is not proved that the notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter, 'Act' for brevity) was served upon the defendant.
20. Now, it is evident from the perusal of rent agreement Ex.PW1/3 that it was executed w.e.f. 01.03.1997 between plaintiff and defendant for 33 months for industrial purpose. However, the lease agreement for the period year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument, according to Section 107 of the Act. Moreover, Section 49 of The Indian Registration Act, 1908 stipulates that an unregistered document, which is otherwise compulsorily registrable, cannot be received into Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 9 of 16 evidence for proving the essential terms, but only for collateral purpose. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (2020) 11 SCC 782 , wherein it has been held as hereinunder:-
"In terms of the provisions of Section 107, a lease of immovable property for a term exceeding one year can only be made by a registered instrument. Admittedly, in the present case, the indenture of lease has not been registered. In consequence, the contents of the indenture would be inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of determining the terms of the contract between the parties. This is the plain consequence of the provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The only purpose for which the lease can be looked at is for assessing the nature and character of the possession of the respondent."
21. Similarly, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra and Another 2023 SCC OnLine 1216 that:-
"In this case, factum of creation of tenancy has been established. But the purpose of tenancy, so as to attract the six months' notice period under Section 106 of the 1882 Act cannot be established by such evidence as in such a situation, registration of the deed would have been mandatory. The onus would be on the defendant to establish the fact that manufacturing activity was being carried on from the demised premise.."
22. Applying the above-stated law to the case at hand, the rent agreement Ex.PW1/3, being an unregistered document, cannot be looked into for ascertaining the duration and purpose of lease, being essential terms thereof. The plaintiff has not specified the purpose of lease in the plaint. On the other hand, the defendant has testified that the ground floor was used for manufacturing purpose and first floor as residence. No material challenge has been laid to this fact during trial by plaintiff. As Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 10 of 16 such, it shall be treated as lease for multipurpose, and would fall within the meaning of words 'any other purpose' used in second part of Section 106(1) of Act. In that event, the lease between plaintiff and defendant shall be considered as from month-to- month basis, terminable by 15 days' notice.
23. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nopany Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUG) (2008) 2 SCC 728 that service of summons of the suit for eviction under the general law itself is a notice to quit upon the defendant under Section 106 of the Act. Having said that, the suit for eviction cannot be dismissed on the ground of mere invalidity of notice terminating the tenancy as the purpose of the notice is only to provide the reasonable time of 15 days' to vacate the premises. In the present case, though the plaintiff has failed to establish that he had served a valid notice under Section 106 of the Act upon the defendant, however, it is a matter of record that the defendant has duly received the summons of suit seeking his eviction. Hence, it is deemed sufficient compliance of Section 106 of Act. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.3:-
24. The onus to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff.
While the plaintiff has urged that the monthly rate of rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.4,500/-, the core defence raised by defendant is that the rent was Rs.1,000/- per month. It is significant to note that plaintiff has made similar statement in his court testimony and not a single question has been put in his Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 11 of 16 cross-examination to suggest that the rent was not Rs.4,500/-, or was Rs.1,000/-, per month. Further, the plaintiff has argued that the rent agreement Ex.PW1/3 also recites that the tenanted premises were obtained by defendant at monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-. Whereas, the defendant has contended that the rent agreement is forged and fabricated.
25. In the considered opinion of this court, it has already been established, in the light of findings with respect to issue no.1, that the rent agreement Ex.PW1/3 was validly executed between the parties and the veracity thereof is no longer in doubt. Although the said document is unregistered and hit by Section 49 of The Indian Registration Act, 1908, however, it is no gainsay that it is admissible for collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49. Upon the aspect as to what is the collateral purpose in transactions pertaining to landlord-tenant, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has enunciated in Bharat Lal Maurya Vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. ILR (2014) 3 Del 2188 as follows:-
"A document compulsorily required to be registered but not being so registered cannot be used as evidence except for any collateral purpose. A collateral transaction must be independent of and divisible from the transaction to effect which the law requires registration. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered transaction. Some examples of collateral transaction in transaction s pertaining to landlord - tenant would be the relationship between the parties, nature of premises, purpose of letting, rate of rent. An unregistered lease deed can be looked into for the purposes of ascertaining any of the above collateral purposes but not for enforcing a term of the lease."
26. Likewise, it is held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Chander Mohan Arora (Dr.) Vs. Sunil Jain (2004) 111 Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 12 of 16 DLT 462 :-
"The law is well settled that any lease deed for a period of more than 11 months needs registration and if the same is not registered, it may not be taken in evidence, however, it can be looked for collateral purposes. Even if the lease deed was unregistered, still it could have been looked by the Court for collateral purposes i.e. for determining agreed rate of rent and other terms and conditions."
27. Thus, it is amply clear from the precedents of our Hon'ble High Court that determination of rate of rent is the collateral purpose. Therefore, there is no bar to admitting the rent agreement Ex.PW1/3 into evidence for the limited purpose of ascertaining the monthly rate of rent of the tenanted premises. As noted hereinabove, the said agreement clearly shows that the parties had fixed the monthly rent of tenanted premises at Rs.4,500/-. There is no document produced by defendant on record to contradict this fact. In these circumstances, the oral testimony of defendant is not sufficient to prove that the rent was Rs.1,000/- per month. Hence, the plaintiff has been successful in proving on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that the amount of monthly rent of tenanted premises is Rs.4,500/-. In view thereof, issue no.3 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5:-
28. The onus to prove this issue lies on the defendant. The defendant has failed to lead iota of cogent evidence to show that the suit has been filed without any cause of action. On the other hand, the plaintiff has proved that defendant is his tenant in the suit property and her tenancy has been terminated, which gives him the right to sue for possession of the suit property from Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 13 of 16 the defendant. Hence, it stands disproved that the suit is without any cause of action. Accordingly, issue no.5 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.6:-
29. The onus to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. It is not denied that the suit property is located within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this court or that the suit valuation is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. However, the defendant has primarily objected as to the subject-matter jurisdiction by pleading the bar of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 since it is her case that the rent is less than Rs.3,500/- per month. Now, Section 50 The Delhi Rent Control Act divests the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of eviction of tenants from property to which this Act applies.
30. In order to prove the interdict of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control Act, three requirements must be fulfilled- (i) that defendant is the tenant in tenanted premises, (ii) that the monthly rent of tenanted premises is less than Rs.3,500/- and,
(iii) that the tenanted premises is situated in the area to which the applicability of Act extends. The first ingredient is not disputed between the parties. Nonetheless, in view of findings related to issue no.3, the defendant has failed to prove that the monthly rent of Suit Property is Rs.1,000/-, rather, it is established that the same is Rs.4,500/-. As a necessary corollary, it is held that bar of Section 50 of the Act is not attracted to the present suit and the court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. As such, issue no.6 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 14 of 16ISSUE NO.7:-
31. The onus to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. In order to succeed in the eviction suit, the plaintiff is required to prove the following material issues, as has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pal Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2002 (62) DRJ 623 :-
(i) Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
(ii) Whether the tenancy in respect of the suit property has come to an end either by efflux of time or by a valid notice sent by plaintiff to the defendant under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and duly served upon the defendant?
(iii) Whether the rent of the suit property is more than Rs.3,500/-
and therefore, there is no protection of the provisions of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 available to the tenant?
32. In the light of findings qua the issues no.2 and 3, as well as the admitted fact of relationship of landlord-tenant, the plaintiff has proved all the aforesaid ingredients in affirmative. Hence, he has successfully discharged his onus to prove his entitlement to recover the possession of tenanted premises from the defendant. Thus, issue no7 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
RELIEF:-
33. As an upshot of the foregoing discussion, the suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed as follows:-
Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 15 of 16a) The defendant shall deliver the possession of the tenanted premises, i.e. Halls forming part of the property bearing no. B-1736, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-
110052, as depicted with red ink in the site plan annexed with the plaint to the plaintiff within one month from today.
b) Costs of the suit shall be paid by defendant to the plaintiff as per rules.
34. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
35. File be consigned to record room after due Digitally compliance. signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG Date:
GARG 2023.10.10
Pronounced in open court: 15:49:08
+0530
Dated: 10.10.2023
(Bharti Garg)
Civil Judge-07, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Note: This judgment contains sixteen pages and all the pages Digitally have been checked and signed by me. signed by BHARTI BHARTI GARG GARG Date:
2023.10.10 15:49:19 +0530 (Bharti Garg) Civil Judge-07, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Manvir Sharma Vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma Civil Suit No:- 93405/2016 Page 16 of 16