Delhi District Court
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma vs . Smt. Anita Jindal. on 26 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR,
ADJ04 (NW), ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI.
RCA No. 70/14
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. B. N. Sharma,
R/o EU4B, DDA LIG Flats,
First Floor, Pitampura,
Delhi110088. .............Appellant
Versus
Smt. Anita Jindal,
W/o Sh. Sushil Kumar Jindal,
R/o BD78D, Hari Nagar,
LIG Flats, near Ghanta Ghar,
Delhi110064. .............Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 09.10.2014
Date of hearing final arguments : 26.02.2015
Date of announcing the order : 26.02.2015
O R D E R
1. By this order, I shall decide one appeal which is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2014 passed by the court of Ms. Sonam Gupta, Ld. Civil Judge, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are mentioned as under:
It is alleged that respondent has filed a suit for ejectment and RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 1/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
possession, recovery of arrears of rent and damages/ mesne profits against the appellant on 12.04.2010 stating that respondent is the owner of the suit property in question which was let out to the appellant in the month of February 2009 through a registered rent agreement executed on 14.01.2009 which was effective from 01.02.2009 for a period of eleven months which expired on 13.02.2009, at the agreed rent of Rs. 5000/ per month exclusive of electricity and other charges. It is further stated that appellant allegedly had paid the rent by way of cash upto September 2009 and did not pay thereafter. Respondent served legal notice dated 22.02.2010 which was received by the appellant but not replied. The appellant contested the suit by filing written statement admitting that he was inducted as tenant in the suit property in question in the year 2005 @ Rs. 1800/ per month including water and electricity charges without executing any rent agreement. It is further submitted that father of the respondent contacted and told him that his tenancy was transfered to the plaintiff and the appellant was now required to pay monthly rent of Rs. 2500/ per month to the plaintiff and father of respondent got signatures of the appellant on some papers which he could not read as they were in English Language. Photographs of the appellant were also taken. It is further stated by the appellant that in January 2010, father of the respondent required the appellant to pay rent for two months together and on the request of father of the respondent, the appellant issued a cheque dated 06.01.2010 RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 2/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
amounting to Rs. 5000/. Appellant received notice dated 22.02.2010 sent by respondent and appellant contacted the respondent and her father and informed that they had obtained his forged signatures on some papers.
It is further stated that respondent filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC stating that appellant had made certain admissions and certain facts have not been denied in the written statement. Reply to the said application was filed by the appellant wherein he reiterated the stand taken by him in the written statement. Ld. Trial Court, however, went on to allow the said application and was pleased to pass the impugned order dated 27.08.2014.
The grounds taken by the appellant/ plaintiff vide the present appeal are mentioned as under:
(i) Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the contention of appellant that he has specifically denied the execution of any registered rent agreement and respondent and her father manipulated the alleged agreement after obtaining the facts and signatures of appellant on some papers fraudulently concealing the real facts.
(ii) Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that appellant was entered as tenant by father of the respondent in 2005 @ Rs. 800/ per month including the electricity and water charges without executing any rent agreement and at the time of inception of tenancy the father of the respondent had taken Rs. 50,000/ which was refundable at the time of vacation of tenancy.
RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 3/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
(iii) Ld. Trial Court also failed to consider the contention of the appellant that on 14.09.2009 father of the respondent had contacted the appellant and told him that his tenancy is being transfered to the respondent and asked him to pay the rent of the premises @ Rs.
2500/ per month w.e.f. February 2009 and father of the respondent got the signatures of appellant on some papers and took his photographs. The appellant had signed those papers keeping faith on the words of the father of the respondent and was not able to understand the contents thereof as he is not highly literate.
(iv) Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that appellant in the month of January 2010, paid the rent for two months i.e. January and February 2010 as per requirement of father of respondent which was paid by the appellant vide cheque dated 06.01.2010.
(v) Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the contention of appellant that respondent and her father have committed the offence of fraud and cheating by obtaining the signatures of appellant on some papers concealing the real facts from him.
(vi) Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that receiving of legal notice dated 22.02.2010 is admitted, however, contents thereof are denied. The notice given by the respondent is defected.
3. In his reply, the respondent has opposed the appeal alleging that the judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been filed on the basis of facts emerged from the pleadings and the facts alleged by RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 4/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
the appellant/ defendant in his written statement there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order/ judgment dated 27.08.2014. None of the grounds mentioned in the appeal are tenable in th eyes of law and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard at length from both the sides. Record is also perused thoroughly as well.
5. From the averments of the parties, it is reflected that rent agreement dated 14.01.2009 is duly registered before the Sub Registrar accordingly as per rules and procedures. It is pertinent to mention here that execution and registration of any document is of prima facie evidence as per law that it has been duly executed in between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that as per requirement for getting the document registered before the Sub Registrar, it has to be asked from the parties that their consent is voluntary and free and they are not under any pressure and they have understood all the terms and conditions therein. Such a presumption, however, is rebuttable. In order to rebut any such presumption the person alleging against such presumption of law has to bring on record the relevant material and evidence to that effect. From the facts of the parties and more particularly the appellant in lease agreement in question, it is not denied and disputed by the appellant himself that appellant had gone to the office of SubRegistrar on the RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 5/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
relevant date i.e. on 14.01.2009. No protest has been alleged by the appellant in this regard that when his signatures were being obtained there at the office of SubRegistrar they were obtained under pressure. The appellant has merely stated that he was not explained the terms and conditions properly and he merely signed those documents without knowing the contents thereof. The appellant has alleged forgery being committed upon him. Such arguments put forth by counsel for the appellant do not find support from record by way of any evidence. Forgery is a legal term which implies to be the signatures of one person by some other person. It is not the case of the parties that respondent put the signatures of the appellant on the relevant day. Therefore, the arguments put forth by the counsel for the appellant that forgery has been committed upon the person of appellant does not seems to be correct. Counsel for the appellant stated that fraud has been committed upon the appellant. How such fraud has been committed and what were the circumstances have not been explained. Nowhere in the entire appeal or pleadings and more particularly written statement, the appellant has alleged that he had accompanied to the office of SubRegistrar. The appellant, however, has stated in para no. 9 of the written statement, copy of which is filed before the appellate court, that the plaintiff and her father have committed the offence of fraud and and cheating by obtaining signatures of the defendant on some papers concealing the real facts from him. It is pertinent to mention here and prima facie reflected RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 6/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
from record itself that landlord tenant relationship in between the parties is not disputed. The nature of the agreement dated 14.01.2002 is nothing but lease agreement/ rent agreement in between the parties which is mentioning the rate of rent as rs. 5000/ per month. In these circumstances, therefore, it does not appears prima facie that the respondent and her father have manager to obtain the signatures of the appellant on some other document besides the rent agreement in question. Moreover, the presumption of law that the document have been duly executed in between the parties, which is mentioned in the Registration Act itself, is also prima facie in favour of the respondent.
Coming to the other aspect that there is dispute raised by the appellant regarding rate of rent, It is pertinent to mention here and considered by Ld. Trial Court that a legal notice was given to the respondent which is acknowledged by the appellant. Such legal notice has not been replied however. No reason have been furnished by the appellant as to why he did not reply the said legal notice when allegedly false facts were mentioned therein. In these circumstances, non giving the reply of legal notice is material in nature which has been rightly considered by the Ld. Trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to consider the admissions as required to be considered under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the court has not only to see the averments made in the pleadings but the documents filed there alongwith are also to be seen and considered accordingly. Giving of the legal notice by the respondent mentioning all the facts RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 7/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
as alleged in the plaint and non giving of the reply by the appellant/ defendant is nothing but operating as estopple against him. No such facts and circumstances have been explained as to why such legal notice was not replied. It is further reflected from the record itself and also considered by Ld. Trial Court that payment is also made by way of cheque of Rs. 5000/ Coming to the aspect of legal notice being defective, reference can be laid upon the following judgments:
In a case titled as Nopani Investment Vs. Sanokh Singh (HUF) cited in AIR 2008 SC 673, it has been held that, "In a case of seeking eviction from the tenant, mere filing of the suit amounts to the notice and is sufficient for seeking possession from the tenant, I am of the considered opinion that Ld. Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion and rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff."
In another case titled as SCJ Plastics Ltd. Vs. Creative Wares Ltd. 192 (2012) Delhi Law Times 237, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sh. Valmiki J. Mehta, it has been held that, "Even if, the notice of termination of tenancy is defective and strictly not in accordance to section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, then filing of the suit itself amounts to a notice of termination of tenancy to the other party. Therefore, the plaintiff is presumed to have expressed his desire not to continue with the defendant RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 8/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
any further who is tenant in the suit property in question. Hence, he/she is liable to be evicted and vacate the premises within reasonable time."
It is reflected from perusal of the above mentioned judgments that whether notice under section 106 T. P. Act is defective or not, once the suit is filed then, even if no notice is given prior to filing of the suit, the filing of the suit itself amounts to given notice to the other party and the tenant/ other party unless untill takes plausible defence, is liable to vacate the premises and the court can pass the judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC if the landlord tenant relationship is not denied and disputed.
In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned judgment/ order dated 27.08.2014 has rightly considered all the facts and circumstances as well as the documents filed alongwith the pleadings and has rightly passed the judgment on admission against the appellant. It is not only the specific averment of the defendant, but his conduct which is reflected from the record is also relevant and can also amounts to an admission which can be considered under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC while passing the judgment on admissions.
6. In the light of above mentioned discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 9/10 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.
7. Trial court record alongwith copy of order be sent to the concerned court for necessary information.
8. Case file be consigned to record room after completion of all necessary formality.
Announced & dictated in the (Prashant Kumar)
open court today i.e. on 26.02.2015 ADJ04(NW)/Rohini Courts
Delhi/26.02.2015.
RCA No. 70/14 Page No. 10/10
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Anita Jindal.