Delhi District Court
Shashi Bala vs S.Narender Pal Singh on 31 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS GARG, DJ-05 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
RCA DJ No. 61/16
CNR No. DLET01-001008-2014
Smt. Shashi Bala
W/o Sh. Jitender Kumar Batla
R/o 20-a, Gali No. 8, Sarojani Park
Sastri Nagar, Delhi-31.
........Appellant
Versus
Sh. S. Narender Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Satwant Singh
R/o H. No. 70, Street No.3, Sastri Park
Chandan Nagar, Delhi-51.
...........Respondent
Date of Institution : 05.09.2014
Date of Reserving Order : 14.11.2024
Date of Decision : 31.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this order, the Court disposes of the appeal filed by Smt. Shashi Bala against Mr. Narender Pal Singh, VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:31:36 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 1of 22 challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2014, passed by Sh. M. P. Singh, Senior Civil Judge, Rent Controller (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Suit No. 245/11, titled Sh. Narender Pal Singh vs. Smt. Shashi Bala, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in his favor. The plaintiff was held entitled to a decree for possession of the tenanted premises, i.e., the first floor of Property No. 20- A, Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-31, as shown bounded in red in the site plan (Ex. PW1/3), along with mesne profits/damages at the rate of ₹6,600/- per month from 01.07.2011 until he receives peaceful and vacant possession of the premises. A permanent injunction was also issued against the defendant, restraining her from creating any third-party interest in the said premises. Additionally, the costs of the suit were awarded to the plaintiff, and under Section 35A of the CPC, a cost of ₹3,000/- was imposed on the defendant, payable to the plaintiff, for knowingly taking a false and frivolous defense.
2. Facts Pleaded In The Appeal (In Brief):-
(a) The appellant has never been a tenant in the suit property, and her husband, Jitender Kumar Batia, never sold the property. No sale documents were executed by the appellant or her husband in favor of the respondent.Digitally signed
VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.01.31 16:31:49 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 2of 22
(b) The respondent called the appellant's husband to identify Mr. Vijay Kapoor and Smt. Sarika Kapoor, who intended to register a partnership firm with the respondent. The respondent requested the appellant and her husband to bring their original property documents as guarantors for the registration of the firm. During the registration process, the respondent obtained their signatures, photographs, and original property documents under the pretext of completing formalities. Despite repeated visits by the appellant and her husband to retrieve the documents, the respondent refused to return them.
(c) The appellant never executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) or any other document in favor of the respondent. She also never requested to rent the suit property from the respondent, as alleged in the plaint, since the respondent was never the owner of the property. The respondent's claim that the appellant stated she had no alternative accommodation is false.
(d) The respondent never agreed to let out the suit property to the appellant for a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-, excluding electricity and water charges.
(e) No rent agreement was ever executed between the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:32:02 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 3of 22 respondent and the appellant.
(f) On 22.07.2010, after signing documents related to the firm's registration, Sardar Narender Pal Singh took the original property documents of the appellant's husband under the pretext of completing the registration process at the SDM's office. However, the respondent fled with the documents, refusing to return them. When the appellant's husband approached the respondent, he was told that Vijay Kapoor had taken Rs. 4,00,000/- against the documents and that the amount must be repaid before the documents could be returned. Later, Smt. Sarika Kapoor issued two cheques for Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent. A legal notice was served on the appellant, to which a detailed reply was submitted.
(g) The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for possession, damages, and permanent injunction. The appellant filed a detailed written statement in response.
(h) The Hon'ble Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by virtue of registered Irrevocable GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will deed, Payment Receipt, Possession Letter relied upon by plaintiff?
VIKAS Digitally signed
by VIKAS GARG
Date: 2025.01.31
GARG 16:32:10 +0530
RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 4of 22
OPP
2. Whether the defendant is tenant in respect of suit property vide Registered Rent Deed dated 22/07/2010? OPP
3. Whether the tenancy of the defendant stands terminated vide legal notice dated 14/05/2011?OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession as prayed for? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for unauthorized use and occupation by defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for Permanent Injunction as prayed for? OPP
7. Whether the signature of defendant were taken on the documents relied by the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances as alleged in paragraph 1 of the WS in reply on merits? OPD
8. Relief.
(i) After framing the issues, the Hon'ble Court directed both parties to lead their evidence.
(j) During cross-examination, PW-1 Sh. Narender Pal Singh admitted that he never resided in the suit premises as the owner. He also confirmed that no electricity meter was VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:32:19 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 5of 22 installed in his name, no application was made to transfer the water meter, and no rent receipts were issued to the appellant. He further admitted that there was no documentary proof of Rs. 4,00,000/- being given to the appellant.
(k) The respondent examined three witnesses, while the appellant examined herself, her husband (DW-2), and Vijay Kumar Gupta (DW-3).
(l) Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
3. Grounds Of Appeal:-
1. The trial court failed to consider that the judgment is against the law and merits setting aside.
2. The appellant and her husband never executed any GPA or sale documents in favor of the respondent.
3. There is no documentary proof of Rs. 4,00,000/- being given to the appellant.
4. The respondent never took possession of the suit property.
5. The stamp paper for the alleged rent agreement was purchased by the respondent as part of a pre-planned conspiracy.
6. The respondent did not pay the proper court fee at the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:32:27 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 6of 22 time of filing the suit.
7. The site plan attached to the suit does not belong to the suit property.
8. The suit was not properly verified as per the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
9. The trial court overlooked several facts favorable to the appellant.
10. No landlord-tenant relationship existed between the appellant and the respondent.
11. No rent receipts or rent agreement were executed between the parties.
12. The alleged documents relied upon by the respondent are illegal and void.
13. The judgment violates principles of natural justice and equity.
14. The appellant will suffer irreparable loss if the judgment is not set aside.
15. The appellant has no alternative remedy except to seek relief from this Hon'ble Appellate Court.
16. No similar appeal is pending in any other court.
17. This Appellate Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal.
18. The appropriate court fee has been affixed to the appeal.
4. Reply By The Respondent:- Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.01.31
16:32:34 +0530
RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 7of 22
No reply to the present appeal has been filed by the respondent.
5. Arguments:
Argument of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that even if the entire contents of the plaint are assumed to be true, no case is made out against the defendant/appellant. He emphasized that the plaintiff is not the rightful owner of the suit property. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmad vs. Sayed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 (15) SCALE 565. The counsel further submitted that the plaintiff failed to examine a crucial witness, Mr. Ajay Pahuja, the deed writer, whose testimony could have clarified the authenticity and validity of the documents in question. He pointed out that the boundaries of the property, as described in the plaint, are inaccurately mentioned, which raises serious doubts about the plaintiff's claim. Additionally, he highlighted spelling errors in the name "Batla," which further undermines the credibility of the plaintiff's case.
Another contention raised by the appellant's counsel was the omission of the security deposit in the rent deed. This, according to him, is a critical flaw in the plaintiff's case, as it VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:32:41 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 8of 22 deviates from standard rental agreements and casts doubt on the genuineness of the transaction. He also argued that it is highly improbable that the plaintiff rented out the property on the very same day it was purchased, which suggests a fabricated or collusive arrangement.
Furthermore, the appellant's counsel drew attention to the plaintiff's bank statements, which, according to him, demonstrate that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to purchase the property in question. This, he argued, raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim of ownership.
Argument of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) argued in alignment with the averments made in the plaint and the evidence presented. He relied heavily on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kavita P. Lalwani , 191 (2012) Delhi Law Times 594. In this case, the court held that under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, a lessee is estopped from questioning the title of the transferee landlord. The court further ruled that, regardless of any defects in the landlord's title, a tenant cannot dispute the landlord's ownership unless they have first surrendered possession of VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:32:48 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 9of 22 the property to the landlord.
Building on this precedent, the respondent's counsel argued that the appellant, being a tenant, is legally barred from challenging the plaintiff's title to the property. In conclusion, the respondent's counsel prayed for the dismissal of the appeal, maintaining that the plaintiff's case is well-founded both in law and on the facts, and that the appellant's arguments lack merit and legal basis.
6. This court has heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record carefully including the Trial Court Record.
7. Point To Be Determined In Present Appeal:-
From the entire appeal of the defendant and the arguments of the both parties, the most germane point that comes to the consideration of the court are,
(a) Whether the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and evidence on record?
(b) Whether the impugned Judgment and decree passed by Ld. Trial Court is not tenable in law and warrants any interference by this Court?Digitally signed
VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.01.31 16:32:57 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 10of 22
8. Findings:-
In the present case, the propounded rent deed is a registered document, which was duly proved by the plaintiff in his evidence. Additionally, Vijay Kumar corroborated the execution of the rent deed by stating that it was executed in his presence. The primary independent witness from the Sub-Registrar Office, Sh. Jitender Kumar, appeared to confirm the existence of the registered rent deed and authenticated it. A presumption of validity is attached to registered documents. In this regard, the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Ratan Singh and Ors. vs. Nirmal Gill & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3681-3682 of 2020, decided on 16.11.2020) are relevant and are reproduced as follows:
"32. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the Courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by this Court in Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors.
The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below:Digitally signed
VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.01.31 16:33:03 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 11of 22 "27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent-1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
(emphasis supplied) In view thereof, in the present cases, the initial onus was on the plaintiff, who had challenged the stated registered document."
Considering the above legal position, it is clear that the onus lies on the appellant/defendant to prove that the registered rent deed is not a genuine document. The appellant/defendant examined three witnesses, including herself, but failed to discharge this onus.
During cross-examination on 25.04.2014, the defendant admitted the execution of the rent deed. The relevant portion of her cross-examination is reproduced as follows:
"I had visited the office of the Sub-Registrar on 22.07.2010 for the execution of the agreement Ex.
VIKAS Digitally signed
by VIKAS GARG
Date: 2025.01.31
GARG 16:33:10 +0530
RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 12of 22
PW1/2. Vol. I had gone to give evidence in connection with some firm of Ms. Sarika Kapoor."
It was stated by Mr. Vijay Kapoor and Ms. Sarika Kapoor, who were claimed to be relatives of the defendant, but the defendant failed to examine them as witnesses.
The defendant (DW-1) proved to be an unreliable witness, as she provided unusual and contradictory replies during her cross-examination regarding her signatures, thumb impressions, and photographs. She even stated that she had not signed her evidential affidavit and could not identify her husband's signature. Her response regarding the photograph on the sale deed was particularly troubling. The relevant portion of her cross-examination is as follows:
"At this stage, the witness has been shown the original document Ex. PW1/2, and she has been asked whether the photograph at point J. The witness states that the photograph is not hers. Vol. There can be two persons with resembling faces."
The Trial Judge also observed the demeanor of the defendant during her cross-examination, noting:
Digitally signedVIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.01.31 16:33:17 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 13of 22 "Conduct of the witness: The defendant during the course of cross-examination has given evasive answers and after very very long pauses."
In light of the above discussion, the rent deed dated 22.07.2010 (Ex. PW-1/2) stands proved, as the defendant failed to establish that it was not genuine.
Similarly, the registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) and other documents were duly proved by the plaintiff. The evidence presented by the plaintiff remained uncontroverted.
During cross-examination, the appellant/defendant admitted to receiving the legal notice (Ex. PW-1/1). She voluntarily stated that she replied to the notice, but no such reply was filed, much less proved.
At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Metropolis Travels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Sumit Kalra, 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB), wherein the Court held:
"13. There is another aspect of the matter which negates the argument of the respondent, and that is that the appellant served a legal notice on the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:33:24 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 14of 22 respondent vide Ex. PW-1/3. No reply to the same was given by the respondent. Despite this, no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent. This Court, in the case of Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram, 1980 RLR (Note) 44, observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and not having been replied to, an adverse inference should be drawn because the respondent kept quiet over the notice and did not send any reply. The observations of Kalu Ram's case (Supra) apply with full force to the facts of this case. In the case at hand, despite receipt of the notice, the respondent did not care to reply nor refuted the averments of the demand of the amount on the basis of the invoices/bills in question. However, the learned Trial Court failed to draw an inference against the respondent."
Applying this principle to the present case, an adverse inference can similarly be drawn against the defendant.
As far as the argument raised by the appellant regarding the legal proposition that a GPA and other documents do not confer ownership, the appellant relied on the case of Shakeel Ahmad vs. Sayed Aahlaq Hussain. There is no denial that a VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2025.01.31 GARG 16:33:32 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 15of 22 GPA and accompanying documents do not bestow ownership. However, the main prayer in this case is for possession based on the rent deed. As concluded above, the execution of the rent deed has been established, confirming the landlord-tenant relationship. A tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord. Notably, there was no prayer for a declaration of ownership in the plaint. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is relevant in this regard and is reproduced as follows:
"116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in Vashu Deo vs. Balkishan, (2002) 2 SCC 50:
Digitally signedVIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.01.31 16:33:38 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 16of 22 2002 SCC OnLine SC 66, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"6. We now proceed to examine whether the appellant could have directly attorned to the owner Trust, bypassing the respondent-tenant on 1-4- 1983, relying on the event of the institution of a suit for eviction by the owner Trust against the respondent-tenant on 30-3-1983, and whether the said event enables the successful raising of the plea of respondent-tenant's eviction by paramount title, bringing the obligation of the appellant sub-tenant to deliver possession over the tenancy premises to the respondent and to pay rent to him till that date. Under Section 108 clause (q) of the Transfer of Property Act, in the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary, it is an obligation of the tenant to put his lessor into possession of the property on the termination of the lease. Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which codifies the common law rule of estoppel between landlord and tenant, provides that no tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:33:45 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 17of 22 had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. The rule of estoppel so enacted has three main features: (i) the tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his landlord over the tenancy premises at the beginning of the tenancy; (ii) such estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenancy continues and unless the tenant has surrendered possession to the landlord; and (iii) Section 116 of the Evidence Act is not the whole law of estoppel between the landlord and tenant. The principles emerging from Section 116 can be extended in their application and also suitably adapted to suit the requirement of an individual case. The rule of estoppel which governs an owner of immovable property and his tenant would also mutatis mutandis govern a tenant and his sub- tenant in their relationship inter se. As held by the Privy Council in Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd. v. L.A. Creet [AIR 1933 PC 29: 60 IA 297] and Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh [AIR 1915 PC 96: 42 IA 202], the estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenant has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord. It follows that the rule of estoppel ceases to have applicability once the tenant has been evicted. His VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2025.01.31 GARG 16:33:52 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 18of 22 obligation to restore possession to his landlord is fulfilled either by actually fulfilling the obligation or by proving his landlord's title having been extinguished by his landlord's eviction by a paramount title-holder. Eviction by a paramount title-holder is a good defence, bringing to an end the obligation of the tenant to put the lessor in possession of the property under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act. The burden of proving eviction by title paramount lies on the party who sets up such defence."
The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kavita P. Lalwani is also relevant in this regard.
The financial capacity of the plaintiff was also raised by the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant interpreted various entries in the plaintiff's bank statements in his own way. However, mere arguments cannot be taken into account without proper cross-examination. The plaintiff was not cross-examined on these entries. Regarding the financial capacity of the plaintiff, no questions were asked of him during his cross-examination. The following related material was elicited from PW-1/plaintiff during cross-examination:
VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2025.01.31 16:33:59 +0530 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 19of 22 "........... I have paid Rs. 400,000/- to the defendant in the house of the defendant......."
"........... The amount of Rs. 400,000/- was paid from my savings and the said amount was lying at my home. I had no documentary proof to show that Rs. 400,000/- was lying with me on the said date. The amount of Rs. 400,000/- was paid in the currency note of Rs. 1000/- and 500/-. The defendant after receiving the amount from me kept it in her Almirah in her house........"
No further questions were asked about the plaintiff's financial capacity, and no suggestion was made that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay the consideration amount. The learned counsel for the defendant attempted to falsify this based on bank account entries, but without cross-examining the plaintiff, such arguments cannot be entertained.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the defendant's argument regarding the plaintiff's financial capacity.
Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.01.31
16:34:06 +0530
RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 20of 22
It is proved that Jitender Batla was the registered owner of the suit property, and the defendant, Shashi Bala, has no right over the property. By virtue of the registered irrevocable GPA, certain rights have been conferred upon the plaintiff/respondent. In view of the same, there is no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff has a better title/right than Shashi Bala.
No substance is found in other arguments, such as incorrect spelling, non-examination of the deed writer, non- mentioning of security deposits, and the improbability of renting the property on the same day of purchase, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, not on the principle of reasonable doubt, and the plaintiff's case has been proven on the balance of probabilities.
9. Conclusion:-
I have carefully examined the impugned judgment and find no reason to disagree with the reasoning, observations, or adjudication of the Trial Court. The conclusions reached by this Court, based on an independent appreciation of the evidence, align with the findings of the Trial Court. There is no perversity or error in the Trial Court's judgment.
VIKAS Digitally signed
by VIKAS GARG
GARG Date: 2025.01.31
16:34:14 +0530
RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 21of 22
Accordingly, no interference is called for, and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
10. A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned Court for information and record.
11. Decree-sheet in the Appeal be prepared accordingly, in terms of this Judgment.
12. The appeal file shall be consigned to the Record Room. TCR, if any, shall be sent back.
Digitally signed Pronounced in the open court VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG on 31.01.2025 GARG 2025.01.31 16:34:20 +0530 (Vikas Garg) Addl. District Judge-05 /EAST), KKD, Delhi/31.01.2025 RCA DJ No. 61/16 Shashi Bala Vs. S. Narender Pal Singh Page no. 22of 22