Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jai Kishan Bansal(D) Tr.Lrs. vs Mohd.Ishtyaquddin on 12 February, 2020
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7810 OF 2013
JAI KISHAN BANSAL(D) TR.LRS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MOHD.ISHTYAQUDDIN RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7813 OF 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7812 OF 2013
O R D E R
Heard appellant(s) appears in-person and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Since the issues involved in all these appeals are similar, we take Civil Appeal No.7810 of 2013 as the lead case. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 15.11.2011 by which the R.C. Revision No.452/2011 filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The R.C. Revision was filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 21.07.2011 by which application for leave to defend, filed by the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was rejected. A review application was also rejected Signature Not Verifiedon 07.10.2011, challenging both the orders, the R.C. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2020.02.14 16:58:08 IST Reason: Revision was filed which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 15.11.2011, this appeal 1 has been filed.
Late Jai Kishan Bansal (Dead), represented through legal heirs, was the tenant of premises in question. He took three shops on rent in April 1977 from one Sultana Bi. The property was Wakf property created by Wakf deed dated 23.12.1931 by Wakf-alal-aulad. Sultana Bi executed a sale deed dated 10.03.2003 in favour of present respondent of the premises in question. An application under Section 14(1)(e) read with Rule 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by the respondent for eviction against Jai Kishan Bansal claiming to be landlord of the shops by virtue of sale deed dated 10.03.2003. An application was filed by the tenant praying for grant of leave to contest and defend the eviction petition which was also replied by the landlord. On 07.04.2011 tenant had filed Civil Suit No.1036/2011 against Sultana Bi for declaration and permanent injunction. In Civil Suit No.1036/2011 Wakf Board has also appeared and filed a written statement and stated that sale deed executed by Sultana Bi in favour of respondent is not valid sale deed. By an order dated 21.07.2011, Additional Rent Controller, North District, Delhi passed an order rejecting the application for leave to defend. Order of eviction was passed which was not to be executed before expiry of six months. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller a review petition was filed by the tenant which too was dismissed on 07.10.2011. Aggrieved by both 2 the orders, the R.C. Revision was filed before the High Court which was also dismissed on 15.11.2011. Aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal, who appeared in-person, submitted that the sale deed executed by Sultana Bi in favour of the respondent was illegal since it was Wakf property and by virtue of Section 51 of the Wakf Act 1995, the permission of the Wakf Board was required for executing the sale deed. It is submitted that there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the respondent since no rent was ever demanded by the respondent after purchase of sale deed and it was only when the eviction suit was filed the appellants' claim to know about the sale deed. It is further submitted that the document which was referred in the sale deed was never brought on the record. He further submitted that there being no landlord and tenant relation, the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable and Rent Controller committed error in rejecting the leave to defend application filed by the tenant.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent refuting the submissions contends that the property in question was Wakf-alal-aulad and it is not covered within the definition Wakf as defined in Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act 1995. It is submitted that no permission was required under Section 51 of the Wakf Act for transferring the property. He further submitted that Jai 3 Kishan Bansal was admittedly a tenant and in the sale deed reference of tenancy is mentioned which is atoned to the respondent. It is further submitted that the suit which has been filed by the tenant being Civil Suit No.1036/2011 has been dismissed on 08.09.2014 by order of Civil Judge, Central Tis Hazari Court, Delhi which order has already brought on the record by an application filed by the respondent being I.A. No.8/2016. It is submitted that the order dated 08.09.2014 was not further challenged by the tenant and suit of the tenant challenging the sale deed dated 10.03.2003 having been dismissed, the grounds sought to be urged in this appeal cannot be accepted. No error has been committed by the Additional Rent Controller in rejecting the application for leave and directing for eviction.
We have considered the submissions placed before us and perused the record.
The main thrust of the submission on behalf of the appellants is that sale deed dated 10.03.2003 executed by Sultana Bi, the erstwhile landlord of the premises was illegal sale deed which will not confer any right on the respondent since the sale deed was obtained without permission of the Wakf Board under Section 51 of the Wakf Act 1955. It is further submitted that Wakf Board itself has filed a written statement in Civil Appeal No.1036/2011 saying that sale deed is not valid since no permission of the Wakf was obtained. The appellants have 4 also referred to a complaint dt.13.04.2016 which was filed against the respondent which has been brought on the record as Annexure P-2 addressed to Station House Officer, Police Station Kashmiri Gate.
There is no dispute between the parties that late Jai Kishan Bansal took the shops on rent from Sultanan Bi. The property which was earlier evacuee property was released in favour of Sultana Bi by an order dated 07.12.1960 which has been brought on the record as Annexure P-1. Tenancy in favour of Sultana Bi is admitted and appellants have been paying rent to Sultana Bi after taking the shops on rent in the year 1977. The Civil Suit No.1036/2011 was filed by the appellants. The appellant clarifies that there were three suits because there were three shops and order of one suit bearing no.1037/11 Sunil Kumar Bansal vs. Sultana Bi has been brought on the record by which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 filed by respondent landlord was allowed and plaint was rejected. It is not the case of the appellants that order dated 08.09.2014 passed by the Civil Court rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 was challenged by appellants any further. The suit filed by the appellants challenging the sale deed dated 10.03.2003 in favour of the respondent was rejected by learned Civil Court, in paragraph 6 the following has been observed:
“6. It is noted from the pleadings of the plaint that initially defendant no.1 was the landlady and plaintiff’s father was her 5 tenant and after his death his LRs including the plaintiff inherited the tenancy. It is further alleged in the plaint that the tenanted suit premises has been sold by defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2 vide sale deed dated 10.03.2003. The plaintiff has challenged the said sale deed on the ground that Defendant no.1 had no right to sale the property as it is wakf property. Now that the sale deed in respect of the tenanted suit premises stands in the name of defendant no.2 and therefore, he having purchased the property steps into the shoes of defendant no.1 and becomes the landlord quo the tenant in the property. This being the position, the tenant i.e. the plaintiff in the present suit has no locus to challenge the title of transferee as the transferee becomes the landlord and the bar of Section 116 India Evidence Act comes into play which enunciates the principle of estoppel and provides that a tenant, during the continuance of tenancy, cannot be permitted to deny the title of the landlord. The present suit has been filed by one such tenant challenging the title of the landlord and in view of the above discussion the present suit is therefore barred by Section 116 Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A tenant, during his tenancy, has no business to challenge the title of landlord. Consequently the plaint is liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11(c) CPC.” The submission on behalf of the appellants, questioning the title of the landlord on the basis of sale deed dated 10.03.2003, cannot be entertained in view of the suit of the appellants having been dismissed due to rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. The Rent Controller has considered the grounds taken in the application for leave to defend and has rightly rejected the said application. The High Court has also considered the issues which were raised before the High Court and 6 have taken correct decision. In so far as submission of the appellants that the document which was referred to in sale deed was never brought on the record and reference to an order passed in suit M/s. Aakar Techno Build (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. where the application filed to bring the copy of the order dated 07.12.1960 has been rejected, it is apparent that the said suit was between the different parties and has no bearing in the present case.
We are, thus, of the view that no error has been committed by the Courts below in rejecting the application for leave and directing for eviction of the appellants. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
However, we grant one year time from today to the appellants to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent on filing of usual undertaking within four weeks.
...................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) ...................J. (R. SUBHASH REDDY) New Delhi;
February 12, 2020
7
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).7810/2013
JAI KISHAN BANSAL(D) TR.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MOHD. ISHTYAQUDDIN Respondent(s)
(IA No. 20402/2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 113374/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH C.A. No.7813/2013 (XIV-A) C.A. No.7812/2013 (XIV-A) Date : 12-02-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY For Appellant(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.A. Khan, Adv.
Mr. Omkar Srivasta, Adv.
Mr. K. S. Rana, AOR Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(signed order is placed on the file)
8