Delhi District Court
Ram Charan Yadav vs Javitri Devi And Ors on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-04,
(PRESIDED OVER BY: ANIL CHANDHEL)
WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI
CNR NO. DLWT01-008593-2016
RCA NO. 61244/2016
Ram Charan Yadav,
Prop. M/s Bharat Safe Company
Address at: 4/52, Gali No. 4,
Anand Parbat Industrial Area,
New Delhi ....Appellant
Versus
1. Ms. Javitri Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash Chauhan
R/o: 17/13, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi
2. Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash Chauhan
R/o 17/13, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Ms. Sarita
W/o Sh. Sudhir
R/o: F-259, Pandav Nagar
New Delhi.
4. Ms. Sunita
W/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o: A-11042
Subhash Park, Shahdara
New Delhi-110032.
...Respondent
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors
RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 1 of 48
REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT/DECREE DATED 14.09.2016,
PASSED BY LD. CIVIL JUDGE-11,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI IN SUIT NO. 96255/2016 (OLD NO.
188/2016).
INSTITUTED ON : 07.11.2016
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.10.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 17.12.2025
Appearances:
Mr. D. C. Akarniya and Ms. Sunita Yadav, Ld. Counsels for the Appellant.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ld. Counsels for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2016, passed by Ld. Civil Judge-11/C, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No.96255/2016 (Old No.188/2016), whereby the suit of the Respondent was decreed for prayers of possession and recovery of mesne profits/damages.
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 2 of 48
2. Proceedings before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge:
It will be appropriate to recapitulate the proceedings before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge-11, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the same are being summed up in brief in the paras stated hereinbelow:
2.1. The Respondent has filed the civil suit for the prayers of possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits with regard to the suit property. The averments made in the plaint by the Respondent/ Plaintiff, are briefly stated in sub-
paras hereinbelow:
i. The Respondent/Plaintiff was about 70 years of age and suffering from old age ailment, therefore, he had appointed Mr. Narender Chauhan as attorney for contesting the suit on his behalf.
ii. The Respondent/Plaintiff was inducted as a tenant/lessee in the suit property, i.e., property bearing No.4/52, Gali No.4, Anand Parbat Industrial area, New Delhi, by Ramjas Foundation through Mr. Ratan Lal, the Hon. Secretary of said foundation.
iii. The Appellant/Defendant had been carrying his business from shop bearing No. 4/53, Gali No.4, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi, which was adjacent to the suit property. The Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 3 of 48 Respondent/Plaintiff and the Appellant/Defendant had cordial relations as they were immediate neighbours.
iv. The Appellant/Defendant requested the Respondent/Plaintiff in March 1982 to allow him to use a part of the suit property temporarily for a short period. The Respondent/Plaintiff, being a neighbour, allowed the Defendant to use a small portion of the suit property temporarily.
v. Thereafter, the Respondent/Plaintiff requested the Appellant/Defendant after about two months to vacate the suit property. The Appellant/Defendant initially tried to avoid to vacate the suit property and subsequently started claiming that he had been inducted as tenant by the Respondent/Plaintiff at monthly rent of Rs.200/-.
vi. The Appellant/Defendant did not vacate the suit property despite requests of the Respondent/Plaintiff and in continuation of his illegal acts, locked the premises and shifted his business from Anand Parbat to Budh Vihar.
vii. The premises remained locked and the Defendant had not vacated the same. The Plaintiff made efforts Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 4 of 48 through the respectable people of the market for vacating the premises but the same did not succeed. The Ramjas Foundation was in litigation with DDA in respect of the properties in the area. The Ramjas Foundation had lot of proceedings and the DDA was considering to allot the properties to the person who were in possession after charging the development charges.
viii. The Appellant/Defendant filed a civil suit against the Plaintiff for permanent injunction being suit No.88/2001 on basis of false averments. The intention of the Defendant in filing of the aforesaid suit was to create a tenancy right in the suit property in order to get benefits from DDA in future. The Plaintiff and Defendant had orally agreed to settled the issue outside the court and said suit was dismissed/withdrawn on 08.03.2002 from the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi.
ix. It was orally agreed/settled between the Respondent/Plaintiff and the Appellant/Defendant that the Appellant/Defendant would vacate the premises within one month of the withdrawal of the suit. It was further agreed that in case the Appellant/Defendant failed to vacate the premises Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 5 of 48 within one month, he would pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the Respondent as compensation.
x. The Appellant/Defendant did not vacate the premises as agreed and the Respondent/Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated on 02.08.2004 and 17.08.2004. The Appellant/Defendant had neither complied with the legal notice nor responded to the same.
xi. The Appellant/Defendant was liable to vacate the suit property and was also liable to pay damages/mesne profit @ Rs.5,000/- per month from My 2002 to till the vacation of the suit property.
On the basis of above-mentioned averments, the Respondent/Plaintiff had sought the prayers of possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits.
2.2 The Appellant/Defendant was duly served with the summons of the suit. The Appellant/Defendant filed the written statement in the matter. The contentions raised by the Appellant/Defendant in the written statement are briefly stated in the paras hereinbelow:
i. The Appellant/Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiff in the suit property, i.e., shop/factory space measuring 7'.3"x13' forming part of Plot No.4/52, Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 6 of 48 Gali No. 4, factory Road, Anand Parbat, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110005, at a monthly rent of Rs.200/- since 1978. The Appellant/Defendant had been carrying on his business as a proprietor under the name and style of M/s Bharat Safe Company and the same was registered under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 and with the concerned licensing department of M.C.D. for commercial activities.
ii. The rate of rent is less than Rs.3,500/- per month and therefore, the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
iii. The suit property was situated in a slum area and the Plaintiff had not obtained any requisite permission under Section 19 of the Slum improvement and Clearance Act and therefore, the Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate and decide suit in question.
iv. The suit in question was filed by the actual landlord/Plaintiff and Mr. Narender Chuahan was not the authorized attorney of the Plaintiff. The Respondent/Plaintiff had sold the suit property to Mr. Narender Chauhan, Naresh Chauhan etc. and had no title in the same.
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors
RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 7 of 48
v. The Respondent/Plaintiff had not affixed the proper
Court Fee for the prayer of possession as well as for recovery of Rs.50,000/- and the value of the suit property was more than Rs.3,00,000/-.
vi. The Supreme Court of India had declared the DDA as the owner of the lands of Anand Parbat Industrial Area and the Ramjas Foundation had no concern with the land of the suit property.
In terms of the remaining averments, the Appellant/Defendant had denied the averments of the Plaint.
2.3. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the replication to the written and refuted the contentions of the same and reiterated the averments of the plaint.
2.4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Court of Ld. Civil Judge framed the following Issues on 16.05.2005 in the suit:
i. Whether the present suit is not filed by duly authorized person? OPD.
ii. Whether the present suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors
RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 8 of 48
iii. Whether the Defendant is tenant in respect of the
suit premises at the rate of Rs.200/- per month since 1978? OPD.
iv. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.
v. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in respect of suit premises as averred in the plaint? OPP.
vi. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.60,000/-? OPP.
vii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for damages, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
viii. Relief.
2.5.1. The Respondent/Plaintiff led his evidence in the suit and examined two witnesses in support of his case. The Respondent/Plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint in his examination in chief. The PW-1 exhibited and relied upon the following documents in his examination-in-chief:
i. Exhibit PW-1/1: De-exhibited and marked as Mark-A being photocopy of license deed.
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors
RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 9 of 48
ii. Exhibit PW-1/2: Provisional receipt dated
22.02.1980.
iii. Exhibit PW-1/3: License fee receipt dated
07.12.1981.
iv. Exhibit PW-1/4: Receipt dated 27.12.1982.
v. Exhibit PW-1/5: De-exhibited and marked as Mark-B
as being photocopy of receipt dated 06.01.1998. vi. Exhibit PW-1/6: De-exhibited and marked as Mark-B as being photocopy of receipt dated 06.01.1998. vii. Exhibit Ex. PW-1/7: Office copy of legal notice dated 02.08.2004.
viii. Exhibit PW-1/8: Office copy of legal notice dated 17.08.2004.
ix. Exhibit PW-1/9: Postal receipt.
x. Exhibit PW-1/10: Site Plan.
The PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant and was discharged upon conclusion of his cross-examination.
2.5.2. The Respondent/Plaintiff examined Record Clerk as PW-2 in the matter, who produced and relied upon the following documents in his examination in chief:
i. Exhibit PW-2/D1: Adhoc License vide
No.39387.
ii. Exhibit PW-2/D2: Photocopy of registration
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors
RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 10 of 48
form.
iii. Exhibit PW-2/D3: Photocopy of indemnity
bond.
iv. Exhibit PW-2/D4: Photocopy of site plan.
v. Exhibit PW-2/D5: Photocopy of affidavit.
vi. Exhibit PW-2/D6: Photocopy of receipt.
vii. Exhibit PW-2/D7: Photocopy of registration
Certificate.
The PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant and was discharged upon conclusion of his cross-examination. Thereafter the Respondent/Plaintiff closed his evidence.
2.6.1. The Appellant/Defendant led his evidence in the suit and examined six witnesses in support of his case. The Appellant/Defendant himself appeared as DW-1 and reiterated the averments of the written statement in his examination in chief. The DW-1 exhibited and relied upon the following documents in his examination-in-chief:
i. Exhibit DW-1/1: Registration certificate of the establishment.
ii. Exhibit DW-1/2: License No.39387.
iii. Exhibit DW-1/3, Exhibit DW-1/4, Exhibit DW
1/5 & Exhibit DW-5/A: Bill/cash memos/challans.
iv. Exhibit DW-1/6: Postal Receipt.
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors
RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 11 of 48
v. Exhibit DW-1/7: Money Order Receipt.
vi. Exhibit DW-1/8 to DW-1/11: Certified Copy of
Order-sheets.
vii. Exhibit DW-1/12: Office Copy of legal notice
dated 06.11.2001.
viii. Exhibit DW-1/13: Office Copy of legal notice
dated 20.11.2001.
ix. Exhibit DW-1/14: Postal Receipt.
x. Exhibit DW-1/15 to DW-1/22: The aforesaid
documents were stated to be some photographs, however the Exhibit numbers were not mentioned on the photographs filed by the Defendant (No photographs were found to be numbered as Ex.DW- 1/15 to Ex. DW-1/22 by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, however Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the aforesaid photographs available in the Court file are in-fact Exhibit No.DW-1/15 to Exhibit No. DW-1/22, which were mentioned in the affidavit of evidence of DW-1, however physical exhibits could not be marked upon the same on account of an inadvertent error of oversight.) xi. Exhibit DW-1/23: Pamphlet.
xii. Exhibit DW-1/24: Photocopy copy of complaint to Chowki In-charge Budh Vihar, Police Chowki.
The DW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 12 of 48 the Appellant and was discharged upon conclusion of his cross-examination.
2.6.2. The Appellant/Defendant examined Ms. Kanchan Diwan as DW-2, as being the witness of fact. The DW-2 was examined to identify her signatures on Exhibit DW-1/12, however she stated in the cross examination that she did not remember the contents of the aforesaid document. The DW-2 was discharged upon conclusion of her cross-examination.
2.6.3. The Appellant/Defendant examined the official witness, i.e., concerned Kanoongo, as DW-3 in the matter for production of record. The DW-3 has produced the summoned record i.e. File No. F8, (804) 09 RTI LM/West Zone IA No.2016 and also relied upon the reply given by the DDA under RTI Act, 2005, i.e., Exhibit DW-3/1, in his examination in chief. The DW-3 was cross-examined and he produced and exhibited following documents in answers to the questions in the cross-examination:
i. Exhibit DW-3/2: Attested photocopy of award containing three sheets.
ii. Exhibit DW-3/3: Kabja Karvahi.
The DW-3 was discharged, upon conclusion of his cross- examination.
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 13 of 48 2.6.4. The Appellant/Defendant has examined Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma as DW-4 as a witness of fact for supporting contentions of tenancy and the DDA being the owner. The testimony of DW-4 was oral and he did not rely upon any document in his examination in chief. The DW-4 was cross-
examined and was discharged upon conclusion of his cross- examination.
2.6.5. The Appellant/Defendant examined the official witness, i.e., Deputy Director of Planning, as DW-5 in the matter for production of record. The DW-5 has produced the summoned record i.e. File No. F17(1), 01/MP/Pt./D-27, pertaining to Exhibit DW-1/23. The witness has stated in her examination in chief that the Exhibit DW-1/23 is of DDA. The examination in chief of the DW-5 was concluded on 04.06.2015 as the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant stated that the witness had brought the wrong file, which did not show the summoned record and thereafter the witness was informed about the correct file and was directed to produce the same. Subsequently the witness filed a letter on 10.09.2015, whereby it was stated that the correct file number was File No. F17(1), 01/MP/PT./D-27 dated 19.01.2015. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant submitted on 10.09.2015 that DW-5 did not prove the survey of the area and he be permitted to summon the witness from the Land Department of DDA. In view of submissions of Ld. Counsel Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the DW-5 was Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 14 of 48 discharged without conclusion of his examination in chief and therefore, testimony of DW-5 remained inconclusive.
2.6.6. The Appellant/Defendant examined the official witness, namely Mr. Ishwar Singh, as DW-6 for production of record from Land Department, DDA. The DW-6 has produced the forms submitted by the Appellant alongwith proof of his occupation as Bill No. 139 dated 01.02.2004, Bill No.166 dated 07.02.2005 and copies of the documents in name of Bharat Safe Company, i.e., copy of factory license, copy of registration certificate dated 23.02.1980, issued under Shops and Building Act & Property Tax receipt dated 26.11.1981. The aforesaid documents have collectively been exhibited as Exhibit PW-6/1(colly) in examination in chief of the witness. The DW-6 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent and was discharged upon conclusion of his cross-examination. Thereafter the Defendant closed his evidence and the matter was posted for final arguments.
2.7. Subsequently the Court of Ld. Civil Judge heard the final arguments and decreed the suit in terms of impugned judgment and decree.
4. Submissions of the Parties:
4.1. Ld. Counsel for the parties have addressed their arguments on the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 15 of 48 that the Respondent was not the owner of the suit property and the suit property was owned by DDA. It is submitted that the the contentions of the Respondent, of being inducted into possession by Ramjas Foundation was false and further, the license deed in favour of the Respondent was expired and therefore the Respondent was not entitled to maintain an action for possession. It is submitted that the Respondent has taken contradictory pleas about the relationship between the parties, which is evident from Exhibit DW-1/12 and the Appellant was a tenant in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs.200/- and besides, there being bar of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the suit was not maintainable as no permission from the appropriate slum authority was obtained. It is submitted that the Respondent has failed to prove the market value of the suit property being less than Rs.3,00,000/- and the Ld. Trial Court should have taken the judicial notice of the fact that circle rate prevalent in the area was more than the value mentioned by the Respondent. It is submitted that the observations of the Ld. Trial Court of the Plaintiff being a licensee and his inability to create a legal lease deed are wrong and in case the Plaintiff was a licensee, he did not have a right to maintain the suit for possession.
4.2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment/decree and Order. It is submitted that the Appellant/Defendant failed to establish the averments of the written statement about the suit Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 16 of 48 property being taken on monthly rent of Rs.200/-. It is stated that the capacity of the Appellant/Defendant was only that of a licensee and the license has duly been terminated, therefore, the Respondent was entitled to seek possession of the suit property.
5. The points for determination, conclusions and the reasons for such conclusions:
5.1. The Respondent filed the civil suit for the prayers of possession and mesne profits with regard to suit property. It is the case of the Respondent that he was a lessee/tenant of the Ramjas Foundation in the suit property and he had permitted the Appellant to use the suit property for a temporary period without payment of any rent. It is stated that subsequently the Respondent did not vacate the suit property and instituted a frivolous suit against the Appellant by falsely claiming to be a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. It is stated that the suit was withdrawn and the Appellant undertook to vacate the suit property, however did not vacate the same and eventuality the Respondent filed the suit for possession.
5.2. It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs.200/- since 1978. It is stated that the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is stated that the suit property was Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 17 of 48 situated in a slum area and the Respondent did not obtain the requisite permission under Section 19 of the Slum Improvement and Clearance Act and therefore the Court did not have jurisdiction. It is stated that the person instituting the suit did not have any authority and the value of the suit property was more than Rs.3,00,000/-. It is stated that the DDA is the owner of the suit property and therefore, the Respondent cannot claim rights through Ramjas Foundation.
5.3. The Court of Ld. Civil Judge has held in the impugned judgment that the Appellant was merely a licensee of the Respondent and the Appellant failed to prove the tenancy. It is stated that since the Appellant was merely a licensee, therefore, the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit and accordingly, the Court of Ld. Civil Judge passed the impugned judgment and decree by deciding the Issues framed in the suit, in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent and against the Defendant/Appellant.
5.4. In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsels for the parties and after consideration of the material on record, the core issues for adjudication of both the appeals can be culled out in terms of following point of determination:
i. Whether the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has correctly decided the Issues framed in the suit and conclusions have been rendered upon due appreciation of Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 18 of 48 evidence?
The above-mentioned point of determination is being discussed in detail in the paras mentioned hereinafter.
6. Whether the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has correctly decided the Issues framed in the suit and conclusions have been rendered upon due appreciation of evidence?
This Court has gone through the Issues framed in the suit in terms of Order dated 16.05.2005. The aforesaid Issues have arisen from the pleadings of the parties and covers the scope of dispute between the parties. The Issues framed in the matter are discussed and evaluated in sub-paras hereinbelow:
6.1. Issue No.1 : Whether the present suit is not filed by duly authorized person? OPD.
6.1.1. The onus to prove the Issue No.1 has been placed upon the Defendant/Appellant. The Plaintiff has instituted the present suit through his attorney Mr. Narender Chauhan. The original Special Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2004 has been filed alongwith the plaint. In terms of Order III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party can cause its appearance, application or perform any act in the suit by itself or through its authorized agent, unless the Court otherwise directs. The Rule 2(a) of Order III of the Code of Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 19 of 48 Civil Procedure, 1908 further prescribes that persons holding power of attorneys authorizing them to do such acts would be authorized agents of the party. Rule 6(1) of the Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 further directs that such authorized agent can also accept service on behalf of party and Rule 6(2) of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down that such appointment may be special or general and shall be made by an instrument in writing signed by the Principal or, if the appointment is general, a certified copy thereof shall be filed in Court. Thus, in terms of above-
referred provisions a party can institute a suit through an authorized agent and only requirement of law is to file on record the instrument of authority in writing for the same, which may either be specific or general.
6.1.2. In the present case, the Original Special Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2004 has been annexed with the plaint as Annexure-A. The aforesaid Special Power of Attorney specifically empowers the agent to institute and pursue the present suit on behalf of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was stated to be old and suffering from old-age ailments. Nothing more is required on behalf of the Plaintiff to show the valid institution of the suit and therefore, the onus to prove the institution being bad in law has been correctly placed upon the Defendant/Appellant.
6.1.3. Though the suit has been instituted and pursued through the Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 20 of 48 authorized agent, however the Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 in the suit to support and prove the material averments of the plaint. Though the Special Power of Attorney dated 30.07.2004 has not been specifically exhibited in the testimony of the Plaintiff, however the same would not nullify the effect of valid institution as the Plaintiff has supported his case. The factum of valid institution of the suit through an authorized agent stood established with filing of original Special Power of Attorney on record and the same remains valid, unless the Plaintiff has denied the aforesaid document or any other invalidity is pointed out by the Opposite party.
6.1.4. The Defendant has not challenged the aspect of valid institution of the suit in cross-examination of the Plaintiff and no question has been asked or suggestion has been given to the contrary to the PW-1. No arguments have been addressed on this Issue as to how the institution was bad in law or as to how the observations of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge were not correct. The Plaintiff has supported the material terms of the plaint in his testimony and appeared as a witness in the matter. The Plaintiff has stated in his cross- examination that Mr. Narender Chauhan was his nephew. Nothing contrary appears from the record to infer that the special power of attorney was not granted in due course of ordinary affairs of life or any prejudice has been caused to the Defendant by such filing. Therefore, the factum of valid Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 21 of 48 institution has been established on record and the Defendant/Appellant has failed to prove that the suit was not filed by the authorized person. The Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and against the Appellant/Defendant. This Court is in agreement with the observations of Court of Ld. Civil Judge on this Issue.
6.2. Issue No.2 : Whether the present suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.
6.2.1. The onus to prove this Issue has been placed upon the Defendant. The Plaintiff has stated the valuation of the suit in para 17 of the plaint, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"17. That the value of the suit for the relief of possession is fixed at Rs.1,50,000/-for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction on which the requisite Court fees has been affixed. The value of the suit for relief of recovery of Rs.60,000/-the Plaintiff has paid the required Court fees. The Plaintiff undertakes to pay requisite Court fees on the relief of mesne profits and damages at the time of final decision of the suit."
Thus, the Plaintiff/Respondent has valued the suit for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for jurisdiction and Court-fees. The Defendant/Appellant has stated in para 4 of preliminary Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 22 of 48 objection of his written statement that the value of the suit property is more than Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore the proper Court fees has not been paid.
6.2.2. Ordinarily, a suit for possession has to be valued, as per its market Value in terms of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Plaintiff has set the valuation of the suit as Rs.1,50,000/- in the affirmative, being its value, whereas the Defendant has stated that the value of suit property is in excess of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Plaintiff has stated in his cross- examination dated 01.05.2006 (page 3) that he cannot tell market value of the suit property. The manner of the answer suggests that the market value was not being asked in reference to the time of institution of the suit in particular. The value of the suit property for valuation is to be considered at the time of institution of the suit and not at any subsequent or prior point of time. It has not been further asked as to whether the Plaintiff was not aware of the value of the suit property at the time of institution of the suit nor it has been asked as to what was basis of the computing the value, when the suit was instituted. The Defendant has stated in his examination in chief that value of the suit property is more than Rs.3,00,000/-, however neither any specific value has been mentioned nor the basis of the aforesaid contention was spelled out. Therefore, the contentions about the value of the suit property being Rs.1,50,000/- or being Rs.3,00,000/- are completely oral, without any documentary Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 23 of 48 corroboration.
6.2.3. The Court of Ld. Civil Judge has held that the Defendant has stated himself to be tenant of Plaintiff at monthly rent of Rs.200/- and therefore, the Plaintiff had the option of valuation of the suit at Rs.24,00/-, being the value of annual rent, in terms of Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the suit is valued for an amount in excess of the aforesaid amount. It is held that since the Defendant failed to prove the market value of the suit property, therefore, valuation of the Plaintiff is to be taken as correct.
6.2.4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has emphasized the aforesaid issue and submitted that in case if the Court had any confusion about the value of the suit property, the Court should have conducted an enquiry under Section 12 of the Court fees Act, 1870 instead of readily accepting the valuation of the Plaintiff to be correct. This Court is not in agreement with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. In the present case, there is no documentary corroboration about the value of the suit property being Rs.1,50,000/- and there is further nothing on record to conclude that the suit property's value was in excess of Rs.3,00,000/-. The import of Section 12 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is to direct the parties to pay additional Court fees if the issue of payment of Court fees is decided in detriment to the revenue. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 24 of 48 possession against the licensee. The Plaintiff even had the option to file a suit for mandatory injunction, in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in, "Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtar Singh (12.03.1985): 1985 INSC 53: MANU/SC/0295/1985", wherein it has been held that the suit against the licensee is not required to be valued at the amount of annual rent and could be valued even at a much lesser amount. Even as per the Defendant's version, the rent of the suit property was only Rs.2,00/- and the present suit has been valued for a much greater amount than the amount of annual rent, if the rent is to be considered in terms of averments of the Defendant. Though the exact market value may not have been established with precision, however, any other alternative value has also not been established by the Defendant and thus, there was no detriment to the revenue in the present case. Therefore, this Court does not intend to interfere with the findings of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge and it is being held that the suit was correctly valued. The Issue No.2 is accordingly decided.
6.3. Issue No.3 : Whether the Defendant is tenant in respect of the suit premises at the rate of Rs.200/- per month since 1978? OPD.
6.3.1. The issue No.3 pertains to the core defence of the Defendant/Appellant and the onus to prove the aforesaid Issue is upon the Defendant. The Plaintiff has stated that the Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 25 of 48 Plaintiff had permitted the Defendant to occupy the suit property for a temporary period as a licensee. The Defendant has stated in the written statement that the Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiff at the monthly rent of Rs.2,00/-.
6.3.2. There is no written instrument of tenancy and the tenancy was stated to be oral. The Plaintiff was suggested in the cross-examination (page 1, dated 01.05.2006) that the Defendant was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs.200/- since 1978-79, however the Plaintiff has denied the aforesaid suggestion. The Defendant has examined three witnesses in the matter to prove his contention of being a tenant. The Defendant has himself appeared as the DW-1 and affirmed the aforesaid contentions in his examination in chief. The Defendant has stated in his cross-examination (dated 02.08.2007, page 1) that he had not placed on record the rent receipts, as the Plaintiff had not issued any rent receipts and refused to issue the same, despite demands or requests of the Defendant.
6.3.3. The Defendant has stated in the cross-examination (dated 02.08.2007, page 2) that he had paid the rent till 2001. It is stated by the Defendant that he has not deposited the rent before the Court nor any steps for such deposits have been taken. Though the Defendant has denied the suggestion that he had never been a tenant in the suit property, however he has stated in cross-examination dated 13.12.2008 (para 1 of Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 26 of 48 page 2) that he had not produced any document on record, whereby his status as a tenant was admitted by the Plaintiff.
6.3.4. The Defendant has stated that he had sent the monthly rent to the Plaintiff by money Order and the same has been refused. The Defendant has relied upon Exhibit DW-1/6 and Exhibit DW-1/7. The aforesaid documents are dated 19.04.2001 and 23.04.2001 and the same show that the Defendant sent the money order of Rs.200/- to the Plaintiff and the same was not accepted by the Plaintiff. The Exhibit DW-1/6 is postal receipt of Money Order dated 19.04.2001 and Exhibit DW- 1/7 is delivery report of the same. Exhibit DW-1/7 shows that the delivery of Money Order was not effected and the same was returned. The date of sending the first and only Money Order is 19.04.2001 and by this time the dispute has already begun between the parties. The same is evident from copy of the Complaint dated 04.05.2001, made to SHO, Anand Parbat, which was filed by the Defendant. Though the aforesaid document was not exhibited in the examination in chief, however the same was filed by the Defendant. It is stated in the aforesaid letter that the Plaintiff has initiated a quarrel with the Defendant on 17.04.2001 and did not allow him to open his shop. Further the copy of the plaint of the suit for injunction, filed by the Defendant, also reflects the date of filing as 21.04.2001. Therefore, sending of one odd money order of Rs.200/- for one solitary month after initiation of the dispute would not on its own prove that the Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 27 of 48 Defendant was a tenant and rate of rent was Rs.200/-, unless the aforesaid money order was accepted by the Plaintiff, which is not the case at hand.
6.3.5. There is no dispute that the Defendant was inducted as a permissive user in the suit property by the Plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has stated that the documents filed by the Defendant would show his possession even prior to period mentioned by the Plaintiff. The reliance has been placed upon Exhibit DW-1/1. The Plaintiff has stated that he permitted the Defendant to occupy the suit property for a temporary period in the year March, 1982. The Exhibit DW-1/1 is the Original Registration Certificate under Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954. The date of issuance of the aforesaid certificate is 23.02.1980. The DW-1 has stated in the cross-examination dated 02.08.2007 (page 1) that he did not obtain any permission from the Plaintiff for obtaining the Exhibit DW-1/1. The Exhibit PW-1/1 may, at best, show the possession of the premises prior to the 1981, however the same does not prove the relationship of landlord-tenant.
6.3.6. The Defendant has also relied upon Exhibit DW-1/12, which is stated to be legal notice dated 06.11.2001 sent on behalf of the Plaintiff by his Counsel Ms. Kanchan Dewan. In the aforesaid notice, it is stated in para 1 of the aforesaid notice that the Defendant was using the suit property, i.e., part of property No. 4/52, Upper Anand Parvat, New Delhi, for a Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 28 of 48 commercial purpose in partnership with the Plaintiff. It is stated in second para that the aforesaid property was given to the Defendant without any security or charges and the Defendant had not been using the same for last four years nor the Defendant has paid the share of the Plaintiff in the business in the name and style of 'Bharat Safe Co.' Thus the Plaintiff, in terms of the aforesaid legal notice claims to be partner of the Bharat Safe Co for which the suit property was being used.
6.3.7. The Defendant has examined the Counsel, who has issued the aforesaid notice, as the DW-2. The examination in chief and cross-examination of the aforesaid witness are cryptic. Though the witness was not suggested that the notice was not sent on behalf of the Plaintiff, however the witness has stated that she did not remember the contents of the notice. Even the Plaintiff was not confronted with the aforesaid contradiction during his cross-examination. Eventually, even if the aforesaid aspect is to be treated as a contradiction, the communication did not refer the Defendant as being the tenant in the property and only claimed him to be a permissive user.
6.3.8. Another witness examined to prove the landlord-tenant relationship is DW-4, namely Mr. Ramesh Chand. His testimony is entirely oral. The witness has stated in the examination in chief that Defendant was a tenant of the Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 29 of 48 Plaintiff at monthly rent of Rs.200. The DW-4 has been asked in the cross-examination (dated 11.03.2015 page 2) as to how did he know about the Defendant being a tenant in the suit property. He has answered that the Defendant had told him the aforesaid fact as he had cordial relation with the Defendant for the past 35 years. Thus the testimony of the DW-2 is hearsay and therefore, the same can-not be considered as proof of tenancy.
6.3.9. Another relevant aspect, which is worth consideration here is that the suit property is only a part of property No. 4/52, Upper Anand Parvat, New Delhi. The same is evident from the communications sent by the Defendant. The Defendant has mentioned the aforesaid address as the address of the Plaintiff in memo of parties of his suit as well as in all the communications. The dominant control of the premises appeared to be with the Plaintiff, which appeared to against the notion of any tenancy. It is case of the Defendant that he is not permitted to carry on his business by the Plaintiff. The cross-examination of the DW-1 suggests that the aforesaid property was not being used for the business and was practically abandoned. It emerges from the cross- examination that there was no electricity connection in the suit property. Further, the Defendant did not produce any books of account for showing any effective business conducted from the suit property. In order to show the business, three or four invoices of a minimal amount have Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 30 of 48 been filed.
6.3.10. Thus there is no documentary of evidence of tenancy. There is no proof of rent ever paid or received. The Defendant has sent the so called rent only once, that too, after the initiation of dispute, which was not accepted. No witnesses have been examined, in whose presence the tenancy was created or the payment of rent was ever made. If the Plaintiff did not issue rent receipt for such a long period, no demands were made by the Defendant in writing. Though the rent was stated to be paid till February, 2001, however no proof of the aforesaid payment is produced. The manner of the aforesaid payment is not spelled out by the Defendant in his pleadings or examination in chief. The Defendant has not produced any written documents of accounting to show that he was keeping the record of the rent paid to the Plaintiff in his books of account, even if the Plaintiff did not issue any rent receipts. No documents have been produced to show that the Defendant has shown his status as a tenant before any authorities, during the ordinary course of his business. The only evidence of averment of tenancy is the oral statement of the Defendant and the same was challenged by the negative suggestions in his cross-examination. The PW-1 has also denied the suggestion of the Defendant being a tenant. Therefore, the evidence led by the Defendant is completely insufficient to hold him as a tenant in the suit property.
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 31 of 48 6.3.11. Thus the Appellant/Defendant has failed to prove that he was a tenant in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs.200/- and therefore, the capacity of the Appellant/Defendant is only that of a licensee of the Respondent/Plaintiff. The Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant. The Court of Ld. Civil Judge has decided the aforesaid Issue in a different manner, however this Court is in agreement with the conclusion of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge.
6.4. Issue No.4 : Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.
6.4.1. The Onus to prove the Issue No.4 is upon Defendant/Appellant. The jurisdiction has been assailed on two aspects. It is stated that the Defendant was a tenant and agreed rate of rent was Rs.2,00/- and the suit property is situated in the slum area and no permission under Section 19 of Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 has been obtained.
6.4.2. The Defendant has stated in his written statement that the suit property falls under the area notified under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot institute suit for eviction without obtaining requisite permission under Section 19 of the Act of 1956. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 32 of 48 area does not fall under the slum and no permission was required to obtained. It is also submitted that the Appellant was merely a licensee in the suit property and therefore, the permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 was not required to be obtained for evicting him.
6.4.3. The Appellant/Defendant has failed to prove that he was tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.2,00/-, which has been discussed in details under the Issue No.3 in the paras discussed hereinabove. It has been held that the capacity of the Appellant/Defendant is/was merely of a licensee.
6.4.4. Further the Appellant/Defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the suit property falls within the area notified under Section 3 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956. Even assuming that the suit property falls in the notified slum area, the permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 is required to initiate an action only against a tenant and it is not required for initiating action for recovery of possession of immovable property against the persons, who are occupying the same in the capacities other than that of a tenant. Section 19 of the Act of 1956 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"19. Proceedings for eviction of tenants not to be taken without permission of the competent authority:
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 33 of 48 (1.) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority:
a) institute, after the commencement of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance), Amendment Act, 1964 (43 of 1964) any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area; or
b) where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in such area, execute such decree or order.
(2.) Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed.
(3.) On receipt of such application, the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary inquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission.
(4.) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, namely:
a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted;
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 34 of 48
b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas;
c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed.
(5.) Where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission, it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant."
6.4.5. Therefore, in terms of Section 19 of the Act, a tenant cannot be evicted without seeking prior permission of the competent authority under the Act. It has been held by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of "Punnu Ram and Others v. Chiranji Lal Gupta and Others: AIR 1982 Delhi 431", that bar of Section 19 of the Act is applicable only against the tenant and not against an occupant of the premises in other capacities such as licensees or unauthorized occupants. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Full Bench are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"27. This brings us to the consideration of a few other aspects agitated at the Bar. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act postulates grant or refusal of the permission to institute any suit or proceedings for obtaining a decree or order for eviction of a tenant or where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act for eviction of a tenant from any building or land in an area declared as a slum area. The question that arises for consideration is what is the meaning of the term "tenant". As noticed earlier, this term is not defined by the Act. Mr. Narula submits that tenant Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 35 of 48 contemplated by Section 19 is a person in occupation or a person likely to be evicted, if permission is granted to institute eviction proceedings or execute an order of eviction. We do not agree. The protection contemplated is for a tenant as recognized by law. A mere occupier cannot be equated to a tenant. An occupier may be a trespasser or a licensee or a tenant. The concept of welfare State cannot extend to giving protection to the trespassers or persons who have no right of occupation. Therefore, when the Legislature used the term 'tenant' in Section 19 as well as in the Preamble of the Act it meant tenant-in-law"
The aforesaid position has further been followed by the Hon'ble Court of Delhi in, "Tulsi Dass Ahuja and Ors. Vs. Chattar Singh and Ors.: 2017:DHC:5950", wherein it has been held that a tenant, not being a statutory tenant, becomes an unauthorized occupant upon termination of his tenancy and he cannot plead the bar of Section 19 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"15. I have heard counsels for the parties and has gone through the record including the trial court. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellants as well as respondents. While I take up first this issue of Section 19 of Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, question for consideration is whether plea under the above said provision for taking prior permission before institution of the suit, could be taken even at the appellate stage or not. In this regard, I may again refer to judgment in Chiraguddin v. Urmila Rani & Ors. MANU/DE/2335/2014:213 (2014) DLT 699, Single judge bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein in more or less similar situation, considering the scope of section 19 of Slum Area (Improvement and Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 36 of 48 Clearance) Act, 1956, it was observed in Para 10 & 11 of Judgment as "I may note that if the argument which is urged on behalf of the petitioner with respect to non- maintainability of the petition under section 14(1)
(a) of the act is accepted on the ground that there was no jurisdiction of the Additional Rent Controller to pass the judgment decreeing the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, the same would create a very peculiar position because it is perfectly possible that an eviction petition may be decreed right till the Supreme Court and thereafter in execution proceedings an objection would be taken with respect to the fact that the eviction petition itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that the premises are situated in a slum area and permission of the slum authority was not taken under Section 19 of the Slum Act. To accept such an argument would mean grave harassment of the landlady in allowing a tenant to plead the rights which were waived by him i.e the tenant will be allowed to plead non- existence of jurisdiction although such an issue is an issue of a right which can be waived, and was in fact waived by not raising the same. After many years of litigation in which the landlady is successful in obtaining an eviction order, to argue that the entire proceedings for eviction must fail cannot be accepted. I cannot subscribe to such a view in view of the categorical ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Martin and Harris Ltd. (supra). In Para 14 of the judgment in the case of Martin and Harris Ltd. (supra) Supreme Court has applied the principle of estoppels in a case having facts such as the present because if objection under Section 19 of the Slum Act was taken in the written statement, the landlords would have simply withdrawn the petition at that stage and sought permission under Section 19 of the Slum Act. Thus Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 37 of 48 landlords having changed their position to their detriment by pursuing the eviction petition for a longer period of time (at least eight years), petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of maintainability only before the first appellate court. It is an extremely important aspect to note that 'slum area' is now only a mere nomenclature because really there are no slums and there is no slum area except that an area in the old Delhi, popularly known as walled city of Delhi, has been categorized as a 'slum area' under the Slum Act although in fact and reality the entire walled city of Delhi/old Delhi is totally built-up area and therein exist some of the most valuable immovable properties; both commercial and residential; in Delhi. Actually Slum Act was passed in the year 1956 as per the situation then prevailing but today in the year 2014 really there are no slums but only huge costly buildings, both commercial and residential though technically they continue to be labeled as a 'slum area'."
11. In my opinion in any case the argument urged on behalf of the appellants/defendants of the suit being barred under Section 19 of the Slum Act, even if appellants/defendants are permitted to raise this defence and that this plea was not waived by the appellants/defendants, yet, the issue is covered against the appellants/defendants in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Punnu Ram and Others v. Chiranji Lal Gupta and Others MANU/DE/0388/1982 : AIR 1982 Delhi 431 which holds that protection contemplated under the Slum Act is for a tenant as recognized by law and a mere occupier i.e illegal occupant/trespasser cannot be equated to a tenant. An occupier can be a trespasser or a licencee or a tenant, and if an occupier is a trespasser then the concept of welfare state cannot extend to giving protection to the trespasser or persons who have no right of occupation under Section 19 of Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 38 of 48 the Slum Act. I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in the judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Manoj Kumar Garg in RSA No. 179/2016 decided on 20.7.2016 wherein I have accordingly applied the ratio of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Punnu Ram (supra) and held that the benefit of Section 19 of the Slum Act is only available to a tenant and not to a trespasser or a licencee. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma (supra) is para 5 and this para reads as under:
"5. Before adverting to the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, I may note that possibly the understanding of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord that permission was required of the slum authority for eviction of the appellant/tenant is based upon a wrong understanding of law inasmuch as permission under Section 19 of the Slum Act is required with respect to a tenant and not a trespasser. Once the appellant/defendant was a tenant at a rent of Rs. 8,000/- per month and was not having protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act as per the case of the respondent/landlord as his tenancy was terminated by efflux of time, as against such a person being the appellant/defendant who continued in possession in spite of expiry of lease by efflux of time, such continuation in possession is as a trespasser and as against an illegal occupant/trespasser no prior permission was required of the slum authority under the Slum Act as held by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Punnu Ram and Others v. Chiranji Lal Gupta and Others MANU/DE/0388/1982 : AIR 1982 Delhi 431. Para 27 of the judgment is relevant and the same reads as under:
"27. This brings us to the consideration of a few other aspects agitated at the Bar. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act postulates grant or Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 39 of 48 refusal of the permission to institute any suit or proceedings for obtaining a decree or order for eviction of a tenant or where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act for eviction of a tenant from any building or land in an area declared as a slum area. The question that arises for consideration is what is the meaning of the term "tenant". As noticed earlier, this term is not defined by the Act. Mr. Narula submits that tenant contemplated by Section 19 is a person in occupation or a person likely to be evicted, if permission is granted to institute eviction proceedings or execute an order of eviction. We do not agree.
The protection contemplated is for a tenant as recognized by law. A mere occupier cannot be equated to a tenant. An occupier may be a trespasser or a licensee or a tenant. The concept of welfare State cannot extend to giving protection to the trespassers or persons who have no right of occupation. Therefore, when the Legislature used the term 'tenant' in Section 19 as well as in the Preamble of the Act it meant tenant-in-law"
(underlining added)
12. I would also like to note that an SLP was filed against the aforesaid judgment dated 20.7.2016 in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma (supra) and that SLP being SLP (C) No. 27944/2016 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.9.2016. 13. In the present case once the tenancy of the appellants/defendants of the suit property being land stood terminated, the status of the appellants/defendants was not of a tenant or licencee. The status of the appellants/defendants after termination of tenancy became that of an illegal occupier of the suit property and therefore in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Punnu Ram (supra) the appellants/defendants even if they would have taken the plea under Section 19 of the Slum Act Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 40 of 48 yet such a defence would not have been successful.
Therefore the last argument urged on behalf of the appellants/defendants is also rejected."
Therefore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Court that the historic bar of Section 19 of the Act is not applicable for filing a suit against a licensor or against a previous tenant, whose tenancy was duly terminated and who was not a statutory tenant under the Delhi Rent Control, 1958. It has further been amplified that 'slum area' is now only a mere nomenclature because really there are no slums and there is no slum area except that an area in the old Delhi, popularly known as walled city of Delhi, has been categorized as a 'slum area' under the Slum Act although in fact and reality the entire walled city of Delhi/old Delhi is totally built-up area and therein exist some of the most valuable immovable properties; both commercial and residential; in Delhi. It is held that Slum Act was passed in the year 1956 as per the situation then prevailing but today in the year 2014 really there are no slums but only huge costly buildings, both commercial and residential though technically they continue to be labeled as a 'slum area'.
6.4.6. In terms of the discussion hereinabove, the Plaintiff was merely a licensee in the suit property and therefore there was no requirement of obtaining any permission under Section 19 of Act of 1956 for institution of the suit in question. Therefore, the Court had jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 41 of 48 and decide the suit. The Issue No.4 is accordingly decided in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant. This Court is in agreement with the conclusion of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge on this Issue.
6.5. Issue No.5 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in respect of suit premises as averred in the plaint? OPP.
6.5.1. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Plaintiff/Respondent is not the owner of the suit property. It is stated that the suit property has legally been acquired by the DDA/ Government of India. Therefore, the Plaintiff, not being the owner of the suit property, cannot maintain suit for possession against the Defendant.
6.5.2. Though on the basis of the evidence on record, it is difficult to conclude whether the DDA has acquired the ownership and even if that be so, whether the Plaintiff's are not acknowledged by the DDA, in terms of license deed in his favour. However, it remains fact of the matter that the Plaintiff has not been proven to be an absolute owner on record. The Plaintiff/Respondent may not have proved the ownership of the suit property, however the same does not create a bar to maintain the present suit against the Defendant/Appellant. A suit for possession of immovable property can be filed in multiple capacities such as:
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 42 of 48 i. On the basis of absolute ownership.
ii. On the basis of landlord-tenant relationship; iii. On the basis of licensor-licensee relationship; iv. On the basis of prior possession alone under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, within a period of 6 months from the date of dispossession; v. On the basis of prior possession alone under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963, within a period of 12 years from the date of dispossession.
In the suit for possession on the basis of landlord-tenant relationship or licensor-licensee relationship, the ownership is not needed to be proved, in case the relationship of landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee is established. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates a bar against a tenant or licensee to challenge the ownership or title of the landlord or licensor. In a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the ownership is not required to be proved. Even in a suit under Article 64 of Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for possession of immovable property, on the basis of prior possession alone, can be filed within a period of 12 years from the date of dispossession. It has been held by the Hon'ble full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. Rev. Fr. K.C. Alexander (12.02.1968 - SC):
MANU/SC/0144/1968: 1968 INSC 39", that in a suit on the Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 43 of 48 basis of possession, filed by the Plaintiff, within a period of 12 years from the date of his dispossession, as per Article 64 of the Limitation Act, the Plaintiff is not required to prove his title, unless and until the Defendant challenges the same and prove the title in the suit property and in that eventuality, the Plaintiff has to show a better title than the Defendant.
6.5.3. It has been established on record that the Appellant/Defendant came into possession of the suit property only as licensee of the Respondent/Plaintiff. The Appellant has failed to prove the landlord tenant relationship and the nature of his possession is only permissive through the Respondent. Once the factum of the Appelant being a licensee of the Respondent is established, the Appellant is estopped from challenging the ownership or title of the Respondent, in terms of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"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."
6.5.6. The bar under Section 116 of Act of 1872 against the tenant Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 44 of 48 or licensee has been explained and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra Vs. Stanley Parker Jones: AIR2006SC3569", and the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"11. The "possession" in the instant case relates to second limb of the Section. It is couched in negative terms and mandates that a person who cones upon any Immovable property by the license of the person in possession thereof, shall not be permitted to deny that such person had title to such possession at the tine when such license was given.
12. The underlying policy of Section 116 is that where a person has been brought into possession as a tenant by the landlord and if that tenant is permitted to question the title of the landlord at the tine of the settlement then that will give rise to extreme confusion in the matter of relationship of the landlord and tenant and so the equitable principle of estoppel has been incorporated by the legislature in the said section.
13. The principle of estoppel arising from the Contract of tenancy is based upon a healthy and salutary principle of law and justice that a tenant who could not have got possession but for his contract of tenancy admitting the right of the landlord should not be allowed to launch his landlord in some inequitable situation taking undue advantage of the possession that he got and any probable defect in the title of his landlord. It is on account of such a contract of tenancy and as a result of the tenant's entry into possession on the admission of the landlord's title that the principle of estoppel is attracted.
Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 45 of 48
14. Section 116 enumerates the principle of estoppel which is merely an extension of the principle that no person is allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. 15. As laid down by the Privy Council in Krishna Prasad Lal v. Barabani Coal Concern Ltd. MANU/PR/0072/1937, "It (Section 116) deals with one cardinal and simple estoppel and states it first as applicable between landlord and tenant and then as between licensor and licensee, a distinction which corresponds to that between the parties to an action for rent and the parties to an action for use and occupation".
Thus, a licensee cannot challenge the right or title of the Licensor in an action by the Licensor for his eviction. A licensee cannot be heard to say that the Licensor's right was good and valid to place him in the possession, and was not good enough to receive the possession back from him, when there was no change in the status and circumstances of the parties. Therefore, the Appellant cannot challenge the right of the Respondent to recover possession on the basis of challenge to his title. Between a licensor and licensee, the licensor has a better right for possession of the immovable property. Therefore, the Respondent has a better right to retain possession of the suit property amongst him and the Appellant, even though the aforesaid right may not be perfect enough against the third parties at large. It is not even case of the Appellant that in case the Respondent was not owner and third parties were owners, he was authorized by such third parties to remain in the possession. The Issue No.5 is accordingly decided in favour of the Respondent and Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 46 of 48 against the Appellant.
6.6. Issue No.6 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.60,000/-? OPP.
Issue No.7 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for damages, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
6.6.1. The Court of Ld. Civil Judge has only granted damages at Rs.200/- as the Respondent failed to prove any other rate of rent of the similarly situated properties or the amount of damage incurred to him. The Respondent has not filed any cross-objections against the aforesaid findings and the same are in favour of the Appellant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to discuss the aforesaid Issue and the conclusion of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge are upheld on the same.
6.7. Therefore, the point of determination is answered in the affirmative by holding that the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has correctly decided the Issues framed in the suit, as per law and upon due appreciation of evidence and the impugned judgment/decree does not suffer any infirmity.
7. Final Decision/Conclusion:
7.1. In terms of the discussion/reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.09.2016 passed by Ld. Civil Judge-11/C, Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 47 of 48 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.96255/2016 is affirmed. The Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. The TCR files are directed to be sent back to Court of Ld. Civil Judge-11/C, THC, Delhi, along with a copy of this Judgment for information. The Appeal files be consigned to the record Digitally room after due compliance. signed by ANIL CHANDHEL ANIL CHANDHEL Date:
2025.12.17 Announced in the open Court (ANIL CHANDHEL) 18:03:01 today on17thof December, 2025 DISTRICT JUDGE-04 +0530 WEST DISTRICT THC/DELHI 17.12.2025 Ram Charan Yadav Vs. Javitri Devi & Ors RCA No. 61244/2016 Page No. 48 of 48