Delhi District Court
Sh. Chhatu Singh vs Sh. Billu S/O Sh. Ram Swaroop on 9 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RENT
CONTROLLER, (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.208/11
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0106842004
Sh. Chhatu Singh
s/o Thakur Mukand Singh
R/o H. No.1/7227, Shivaji Park
Shahdara, Delhi32 ........... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Billu s/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o H. No.677, Jhil Khurenja, Delhi51 ......... Defendant
Suit for recovery of possession and occupation charges
Case filed on - 31.07.2004
Arguments heard on - 16.12.2014
Judgment pronounced on - 09.01.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff's case is as follows: Plaintiff purchased property bearing no. 677, Jhil Khurenja, Delhi vide notarised general power of attorney sale documents (Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/8) dt. 29.10.1008. Written text of these documents reveal that its executants in plaintiff's favour were Ms. Bhagwati Devi and late Khimya Devi's legal heirs, namely, Pushpa Devi, Munni Devi, Surja Singh and Manmohan Singh. Relevant would it be to note that late Khimya Devi was Bhagwati Devi's real sister and plaintiff's motherinlaw. CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 1 of 19 Pushpa Devi, daughter of late Khimya Devi and one of the executants of the aforesaid documents, is plaintiff's wife.
2. The aforesaid property measuring 150 sq. yards consists of 3 one room set and 4 shops on the ground floor and one room set on the 1st floor. Plaintiff avers that he took possession of the property at the time of its transfer in his favour and all the occupants therein were informed accordingly. When the plaintiff took over the property, certain eviction proceedings instituted by Ms. Bhagwati Devi against a tenant Kamal Singh qua a shop therein was sub judice in the Court of Sh. V. K. Maheshwari, Ld. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. On 23.02.1999 the eviction petition stood amicably resolved and the tenant Kamal Singh handed over possession of the shop under his occupation to the plaintiff.
3. Two civil suits qua the aforesaid property were also sub judice in the Court of Sh. Devender Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. These two civil suits were: (a) Suit titled as 'Bhagwati Devi vs. Chanchal Sharma', and (b) Suit titled as 'Chanchal Sharma vs. Bhagwati Devi'. These two suits too were compromised and possession of portion of the property in dispute came to be handed over to the plaintiff.
4. Now back to the shop vacated by the tenant Kamal Singh. Plaintiff, in paras 6 & 7 of his plaint, avers as follows:
6. That the defendant is the distant relative of the plaintiff and the defendant requested the plaintiff to allow him to occupy one shop on leave and license basis at the ground floor bearing CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 2 of 19 Private no.1, which was previously occupied by Sh. Kamal Singh and vacated on 22.02.1999.
7. That the defendant voluntarily agreed to vacate the said shop as and when asked by the plaintiff and also agreed to pay Rs.
2500/ p.m. towards occupation charges as license fees from March, 1999 onwards.
5. Plaintiff goes on to state that he asked the defendant, who was in arrears of occupation charges, to pay such charges and vacate the said shop for its reconstruction and for commencement of his own business. Defendant agreed to it, but he later on refused to vacate and pay the occupation charges. He instead sued the plaintiff for injunction stating himself to be a tenant at monthly rental of Rs. 175/ under the landlordship of Smt. Bhagwati Devi. Certified copies (Ex. DW1/P1 and Ex. DW1/P2) on record reveal that the injunction suit came to be disposed of vide Order dt. 20.04.2004 on the statement of counsel for Chhattu Singh (plaintiff herein) that Billu (defendant herein) would not be dispossessed without due process of law.
6. Defendant further allegedly threatened the plaintiff to make additions and alterations and also to create third party interest in the property. Plaintiff was thus compelled to sue him for permanent injunction. Certified copies (Ex. DW1/7) on record reveal that this injunction suit too was disposed of vide Order dt. 20.04.2004 on the statement of Billu (defendant herein) that he would not make alterations, construction, and structural changes in the shop.
7. Plaintiff then issued a legal notice dt. 21.12.2003 (Ex. PW1/12) CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 3 of 19 through registered post to defendant Billu demanding shop's possession and its occupation charges. Defendant neither paid any penny nor vacated the shop and instead responded vide his own reply thereby controverting the averments made in the legal notice Ex. PW1/12. On these averments, plaintiff filed this case against the defendant seeking the following reliefs:
(a) A decree of Rs.80,000/ in plaintiff's favour and against the defendant as arrears of license fees for the period from April, 2002 till 31.01.2004.
(b) A decree of Rs.12,500/ in plaintiff's favour and against the defendant as occupation charges.
(c) A decree in mandatory form thereby directing the defendant to vacate and to remove his belongings from the shop bearing Private No. 1, in premises No.677, Jhil Khurenja Delhi32;
(d) Pendente lite and future interest be awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant @ 36% p.a. till the realization of decreetal amount.
8. Defendant's stand is that he was inducted as a tenant by Bhagwati Devi in respect of one shop in the property in April, 1999 at monthly rental of Rs. 175/ excluding other charges. He avers that he had been regularly paying rent to Bhagwati Devi and after her demise is paying the same to her son Gullu. He goes on to state that in terms of power of attorney sale documents (Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/5) dt. 03.08.1999 executed by Bhagwati Devi in his favour, he became owner of 20 ½ sq. yds. portion of the property. Relevant would it be to note that the general power of attorney (Ex. DW1/1) and the Will (Ex. DW1/2) are registered. He submits that ever since the sale of 20 ½ sq. yards portion in his favour, he has been in exclusive possession thereof. CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 4 of 19
9. As regards plaintiff's claim to ownership of the property vide general power of attorney sale documents (Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/8), defendant denies the same and terms these documents as forged and fabricated. He vehemently refutes plaintiff's assertion that he (plaintiff) had inducted him (defendant) as a licensee at monthly license fee of Rs. 2,500/ qua the shop in question. He thus urges that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. As regards the judicial proceedings with Chanchal Sharma and tenant Kamal Singh, he feigns ignorance. Institution of two injunction suits by the parties herein against each other and its final disposal is not denied.
10. Besides the aforesaid, he accuses the plaintiff of concealing actual facts. He states that the suit is time barred, bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary party and without any cause of action.
11. Plaintiff in his replication reiterates and reaffirms his stand as set out in the plaint and denies those made by the defendant in his written statement.
12. The issues are as follows:
1) Whether the plaintiff allowed the defendant to retain the suit shop on license basis and the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,500/ per month as license fee from March 1999 onwards? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
3) Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim any interest, if so, at what rate and for what which period? OPP CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 5 of 19
5) (Additional issue framed on 10.05.2005) Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief, if so, what relief?
13. In plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff (PW1) and his son Virender Singh were the two witnesses. Plaintiff (PW1) relied upon the following documents:
➢Site plan - Ex. PW1/1, ➢General Power of Attorney in plaintiff's favour Ex. PW1/5, ➢Agreement to Sell in plaintiff's favour Ex. PW1/6, ➢Joint affidavit of the executants in plaintiff's favour Ex. PW1/7, ➢Receipt of Rs. 1.50 lacs - Ex. PW1/8, ➢Plaintiff's legal notice dt. 21.12.2003 to the defendant and its postal receipt - Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 respectively. ➢Copy of certified copy of the eviction proceedings against tenant Kamal Singh instituted by Bhagwati Devi - Mark A ➢Copy of receipt of Rs. 2.25 lacs issued by tenant Kamal Singh in plaintiff's favour - Mark B ➢Copy of certified copy of Chanchal Sharma's statement (in CS 414/03 titled as 'Bhagwati Devi vs. Chanchal Sharma') wherein she stated to the Court that she gave possession of 'suit property' to plaintiff - Mark C. ➢Copy of certified copy of Order dt. 01.11.2003 whereby the aforesaid civil suit no. 414/03 stood disposed of - Mark D CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 6 of 19
14. Defendant examined himself as DW1. He relied upon the following documents:
➢Registered General Power of Attorney executed by Bhagwati Devi in defendant's favour Ex. DW1/1.
➢Bhagwati Devi's registered Will in defendant's favour - Ex. DW1/2.
➢Agreement to sell executed by Bhagwati Devi in defendant's favour - Ex. DW1/3.
➢Bhagwati Devi's affidavit - Ex. DW1/4.
➢Receipt of Rs. 20,000/ executed by Bhagwati Devi in defendant's favour Ex. DW1/5.
➢Certified copy of judicial proceedings in civil suit no. 495/04 titled as 'Chhattu Singh vs. Billu' - Ex. DW1/7. ➢On record there are three documents exhibited as Ex. DW1/9 -
(a) MTNL bill dt. 11.12.2002 in defendant's name, (b) Report of architect Rameshwar Dayal, and (c) Copy of a police complaint dt.
02.11.2003 lodged by defendant Billu.
➢Few Invoices showing purchase of goods for defendant's shop and purchase of a fridge Ex. DW1/10.
➢MTNL bill dt. 11.06.2002 in defendant's name - Ex. DW1/12. ➢Defendant's evidence by way of affidavit - Ex. DW1/13. ➢Few photographs of shop - Ex. DW1/15.
CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 7 of 19 ➢Certified copies of civil suit no. 55/03 titled as 'Billu Vs. Chhattu Singh' Ex. DW1/P1 and Ex. DW1/P2.
➢Defendant''s reply to plaintiff's legal notice dt. 21.12.2003 - Ex. DW1/X.
15. I have heard the arguments at Bar and perused the record.
16. Issuewise findings are as follows:
17. Issue no.5: The issue is whether the defendant proves that the suit is improperly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. Plaintiff valued his reliefs as under:
Relief Valuation For recovery of license fee from April, 2002 till Rs. 80,000/ 31.01.2004 @ Rs. 2,500/ per month amounting Rs.
80,000/ For recovery of occupation charges from 01.02.2004 till Rs. 12,500/ 30.06.2004 amounting Rs. 12,500/ For recovery of possession Rs. 130/
18. The defendant took this objection visavis court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction on the premise that market value of the property in dispute is more than Rs.3 lacs. In this regard, he placed reliance on a valuation report dt. 27.01.2006 (Ex. DW1/9) of an architect Sh. Rameshwar Dayal. In this valuation report, the architect estimated market value of the portion of the property under defendant's occupation to be Rs. 3,19,050/ as on 27.01.2006. However, this valuation report Ex. DW1/9 does not advance defendant's case CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 8 of 19 for the following manifold reasons: Firstly, its author Rameshwar Dayal did not step into the witness box to prove it. Secondly, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide Order dt. 06.08.2007 has already held this valuation report to be of no relevance, which Order was never challenged. Thirdly, the valuation report Ex. DW1/9 sets out the market value as on 27.01.2006; whereas the instant lis was instituted way back on 31.07.2004. The point therefore is that valuation report of year 2006 can certainly not be relied upon to urge that market value of the property was the same even 2 years ago in year 2004.
19. There is one more reason to arrive at this conclusion. The law is that the question of court fee and suit valuation must be considered in the backdrop of allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final outcome of the suit on merits {Neelavathi vs. N. Natarajan, (1980) 2 SCC 247}. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendant Billu is plaintiff's 'licensee' and that despite termination of his 'licence' through legal notice Ex. PW1/12, he did not vacate the premises. It is well settled that a suit for mandatory injunction would be maintainable after the termination of license by issuing a notice when the licensee has refused to hand over vacant possession. Alternatively, a licensor may also file a suit for possession of the suit property and pay court fees as prescribed under section 7 (v), Court Fees Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following observations in Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh (1985) 2 SCC 332:
CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 9 of 19
"In Milkha Singh v. Diana, A.I.R. 1964 J&K 99, it has been observed that the principle that once a licensee always a licensee would apply to all kinds of licenses and that it cannot be said that the moment the license is terminated, the licensee's possession becomes that of a trespasser. In that case, one of us (Murtaza Fazal Ali, J, as he then was) speaking for the Division Bench has observed:
"After the termination of the license, the licensee is under a clear obligation to surrender his possession to the owner and if he fails to do so, we do not see any reason why the licensee cannot be compelled to discharge this obligation by way of a mandatory injunction under Section 55 of the Specific Relief Act. We might further mention that even under English law a suit for injunction to evict a licensee has always been held to be maintainable..... Where a licenser approaches the court for an injunction within a reasonable time after the license is terminated, he is entitled to the injunction. On the other hand, if the licensor causes huge delay the court may refuse the discretion to grant an injunction on the ground that the licensor had not been diligent and in that case the licensor will have to bring a suit for possession which will be governed by Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act."
20. Now, applying the extant law to the case at hand. Plaintiff in his plaint asserts that the defendant, who is his licensee, does not vacate the premises despite termination of his licencee vide legal notice dt. 21.12.2003 (Ex. PW1/12). This suit was filed on 31.07.2004. Thus, there is no 'huge delay' in filing this case. Therefore on the anvil of the ratio of Sant Lal Jain (supra), this suit seeking defendant's removal by valuing the same at Rs. 130/ can certainly not be faulted with. Other reliefs seeking recovery of Rs. 80,000/ and Rs. 12,500/ are also within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Court fees of Rs. 3,270/ furnished with the plaint is appropriate. CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 10 of 19
21. This issue thus stands decided against the defendant and in plaintiff's favour by holding that this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present matter and that the court fees furnished with the plaint is apt.
22. Issue no.1: The issue is whether the plaintiff proves that he had allowed the defendant to retain the suit shop on 'license' basis and the latter agreed to pay Rs. 2,500/ per month as 'license fee' from March, 1999 onwards.
23. I may note at the very outset that the plaintiff had instituted another civil suit against defendant Billu bearing suit no. 153/06 titled as 'Chhattu Singh Vs. Billu'. This suit was filed by plaintiff Chhattu Singh, inter alia, seeking recovery of 'license fee' for a certain duration (20.05.2005 to 31.05.2005) from the defendant Billu. The Trial Court of Sh. Anil Kumar Sisodia, Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi decided against the plaintiff and in defendant Billu's favour by holding that the plaintiff Chhattu Singh was not able to prove the relationship of licensorlicensee. The aforesaid suit was then carried forward in appeal. Appellate Court of Sh. Reetesh Singh, Ld. ADJ, Karkardooma Courts, vide its judgment dt. 15.05.2014 affirmed the findings of Ld. trial Court and held as follows:
"35. Onus to prove both these issues were on the plaintiff. In the present matter, plaintiff claimed that the defendant was his licensee who used to pay him license fee of Rs. 2,500/ per month. There is no documentary relied upon or produced by the plaintiff in this regard. All evidences relating to the creating of the license, its terms and license fee were oral, Section 60 of the Evidence Act lays down that all oral CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 11 of 19 evidence must be direct. Thus facts relating to creating of the license and terms of the same being in the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff ought to have been deposed by him. Plaintiff however failed to examine himself as a witness to prove these facts. PW1 is the son of plaintiff. His evidence has already been referred to by this Court. He has not deposed as an attorney of the plaintiff. He has only deposed that he knew the plaintiff and knew the facts of the case and therefore claimed himself to be competent to depose.
36. Sh. Virender Singh, PW1 was crossexamined by the counsel for the defendant. In his crossexamination, he has specifically deposed that he has not received any license fee from the defendant. Thus PW1 himself does not have any personal knowledge about the creation of license by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. In these facts and circumstances, I fully agree with the findings of the Ld. Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove that he had created any license in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property and on account of this reason he was not entitled to recovery of any occupation charges from the defendant."
24. Therefore, the aforesaid judicial verdict on the relationship of licensor licensee inter se the same parties operates as res judicata in this civil suit. What fell for adjudication in the previously decided suit inter se the same parties was plaintiff's entitlement to recover license fee @ Rs. 2,500/ per month for the period from 20.05.2005 till 31.05.2005 from defendant Billu. The very basis of the claim to recover licensee fee in the previously decided civil suit was plaintiff's fundamental assertion that there existed licenser licensee relationship between him and the defendant. That is to say, the very claim of licenserlicensee relationship was directly and substantially in issue in the previously decided suit, which issue was in fact heard and finally CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 12 of 19 decided after a full fledged trial. Thus, the judicial decision of the previously decided civil suit returning the finding that there exists no relationship of licensorlicensee operates as res judicata in this civil suit.
25. That apart, in the instant case too, there is no evidence at all to even remotely indicate that plaintiff had ever inducted the defendant as his licensee. There is neither any evidence to indicate that any time after he started to occupy the shop, the defendant agreed to attorn himself to the plaintiff as his licensee. The plaintiff in his plaint is conspicuously silent as to on what date or month did he induct the defendant as his licensee. Paras 6 & 7 of his plaint extracted hereinabove would bear this out, wherein he merely states that defendant 'requested' to occupy on leave and license basis the shop vacated by tenant Kamal Singh on 22.02.1999 and 'agreed' to pay license fee of Rs. 2,500/ per month from March '99 onwards and vacate as and when asked for. But merely 'requesting' to occupy and 'agreeing' to pay licensee fee would not by itself indicate as to when exactly the premises came to be occupied. Secondly, there is no document on record to even show that the defendant ever paid Rs. 2,500/ even on one occasion to the plaintiff. At least, in the plaint there is not a single averment to this effect. Thirdly, there was never any correspondence between the parties prior to onset of the dispute between them in their respective alleged capacities as a licensorlicensee. Fourthly, plaintiff has neither shown his own record to even indicate that he ever received license fee of Rs. 2,500/ from the defendant. Mere self serving CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 13 of 19 ipse dixit of the plaintiff (PW1) and his son (PW2) sans a single supporting material would not suffice.
26. Even assuming that the defendant had come into the premises with plaintiff's permission; yet this would not ipso facto suffice to hold that the nature of defendant's occupation was that of a 'licensee'. Reason being that when a person comes to occupy a premises with another's permission on payment of certain charges; it is certainly not that such a possession necessarily has to be on 'license' basis. Such a possession can even be in the nature of a 'lease' and it may have the protection of the rent control legislation. The mere fact that the parties, or one of the parties, for their/his own convenience, agree to term the same as 'license' and its occupation charges as 'licensee fee' would not bind the Court to hold it to be so. It is for the Court to arrive at its own independent decision on the basis of the nature of possession and other attending circumstances. Courts have gone so far as to hold that even if there exists a document terming the nature of occupant's possession as 'license', yet that document would not be decisive. In the case of C.M. Beena & Anr. v. P.N. Ramachandra Rao, AIR 2004 SC 2103, it was held: "The premises are located in a busy commercial market. The appellant has exclusive possession over the premises and the owner neither can nor does interfere therein. A full fledged stationery shop and allied business activities have been carried on by the appellant in the premises ever since 1972. The appellant was in possession of the premises for about 20 years before the date of the deed of licence and in spite of the CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 14 of 19 'deed of license' of 1981 having been executed continued to possess, use and enjoy the occupation of premises as before. Though the socalled licence expired in 1982 the respondent did not insist on the appellant putting back the respondent in possession of the premises but allowed him to remain in occupation and to continue to do so for a period of about seven years till the date of the institution of the suit. It is thus clear that the present one is not a case where the possession or control of the premises was retained by the respondent while the appellant was only permitted to make such use of the premises as would have been unlawful but for the permission given. Agreeing with the High Court we hold the relationship between the parties to be landlord and tenant and the possession of the appellant over the premises as that of a tenant."
27. From the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that exclusiveness of possession or otherwise is one of the criteria for ascertaining whether such possession is in the nature of 'license' or not. In the case at hand, the defendant is running the shop since 1999. He has been in exclusive possession thereof and continues to be so even as on date and the plaintiff has no control over the same. Plaintiff has no control over the lock and key of the shop. Defendant has a telephone connection in his own name. There is no evidence whatsoever led by the plaintiff that he has any control over defendant's possession over the shop in question. Defendant is using the said shop exclusively. He is running full fledged commercial activity therein. It is thus clear that the present one is not a case where the possession or control of the shop was retained by the plaintiff while the defendant was only permitted to make such use of the shop as would have been unlawful, but for the permission given. The fact that the plaintiff gives defendant's possession CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 15 of 19 of the shop the hue and colour of 'license' and its occupation charges as 'licensee fee' cannot itself be decisive of the nature of occupation. Therefore, what is clear is that the nature of defendant's occupation of the shop can be anything, but on 'license' basis.
28. Plaintiff's counsel argued that document Mark A (copy of certified copy of the eviction proceedings against tenant Kamal Singh instituted by Bhagwati Devi) reflects that the tenanted shop stood vacated in February, 1999. To buttress this argument, he also relied upon document Mark B (copy of receipt of Rs. 2.25 lacs issued by tenant Kamal Singh in plaintiff's favour) to show that possession of the tenanted shop was in fact delivered to the plaintiff by tenant Kamal Singh. He urged that defendant did not question these two documents and put no suggestions to PW1 & PW2 in this regard. He thus sought to bring home the point that it was in fact the plaintiff who had inducted the defendant in the shop vacated by erstwhile tenant Kamal Singh. This argument is absolutely meritless. Firstly, this argument would not suffice to surmount the legal barrier of res judicata. Secondly, even assuming that it was in fact the plaintiff Chhattu Singh who had inducted the defendant Billu in the shop in question; yet the fundamental question whether such occupation of the defendant in the shop was in the nature of 'license', as legally understood, would remain unanswered. The mere factum that the plaintiff had inducted the defendant into the shop would not ipso facto suffice for this Court to return a finding that latter's occupation was in the nature of CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 16 of 19 'license'.
29. Plaintiff's counsel further argued that defendant (DW1) admitted that he had no document to show that he was in occupation of the shop prior to 1999. He pointed out that defendant (DW1) also admitted that he had not paid any house tax and that he had no written lease deed or rent receipt in his favour executed by Ms. Bhagwati Devi. These arguments are again without merit for multiple reasons. The mere factum that the defendant has not been able to prove that he initially came into the shop as a tenant of Ms. Bhagwati Devi will not, by any logic, imply that plaintiff's case of there being relationship of licensor - licensee stands proved. Firstly, a plaintiff must stand on his own legs. A plaintiff cannot seek to build the edifice of his case upon the weaknesses and shortcomings in defendant's stand. Decisions reported as Sankar Kumar & Anr. vs. Mohanlal Sharma, AIR 1998 Orissa 117, State of West Bengal vs. Subimal Kumar Mondal & Anr., AIR 1982 Cal 251 and Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal vs. Badagara Jumayath, JT 2004 (6) SC 556 can be referred to in this regard. Secondly, the onus is not upon the defendant to disprove plaintiff's version as regards existence of licensorlicensee relationship. Rather, the onus is squarely upon the plaintiff himself to prove his own case that the shop was given to defendant on 'license' basis. The defendant cannot be obligated to disprove plaintiff's stand and that too without the latter not discharging his own burden. This issue certainly cannot be decided in plaintiff's favour on the CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 17 of 19 misplaced assumption that it is defendant's onus to disprove plaintiff's stand. Section 101, Evidence Act casts the burden of proof upon the plaintiff. And in terms of section 102, Evidence Act it is the plaintiff's case that would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. For these reasons, the fact that there is no rent receipt, or lease deed executed by Ms. Bhagwati Devi favouring the defendant will not in any manner advance plaintiff's case. For similar reasons, the fact that defendant paid no house tax will not also come to plaintiff's assistance in proving his case.
30. This issue is thus decided against the plaintiff and in defendant's favour.
31. Issue no.2 The issue is whether the defendant proves that plaintiff has no locus standi to file this case. It has already been held hereinabove as well as in the previously decided suit inter se the same parties that plaintiff has failed to establish the relationship of 'licensorlicensee' between him and the defendant. That apart, in the previously decided civil suit, Ld. Trial Court as well as Ld., Appellate Court have returned findings that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. For these reasons, plaintiff cannot be said to have locus standi to file this case. This issue stands decided against the plaintiff and in defendant's favour.
32. Issue no.3 The issue is whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party. On this aspect, the defendant in his written statement never indicated as to who is/are the person(s) who ought to CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 18 of 19 have been necessarily joined in the instant lis. There is neither any evidence led on this aspect by the defendant. This issue goes against the defendant and in plaintiff's favour.
33. Issue no.4 - This issue concerns the interest to be awarded on the claim amount of the plaintiff. Decision on issue no. 1 a fortiori entails that plaintiff is not entitled to any interest. This issue goes against the plaintiff.
34. Relief The suit stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (M.P. SINGH)
Dated:09.01.2015 Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No.208/11 Chhatu Singh v. Billu Page 19 of 19