Delhi High Court
Swarn Lata Agarwal & Anr vs M/S Narang Medicine Co. on 24 November, 2015
Equivalent citations: 2016 (1) ADR 483, (2016) 159 ALLINDCAS 475 (DEL), (2016) 1 CURCC 601, (2016) 1 RENTLR 320, (2015) 225 DLT 503
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24-11-2015
+ CS(OS) 2731/2012 & IA No.10420/2013
SWARN LATA AGARWAL & ANR ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Anuj Garg, Mr.Aman Bhalla,
Ms.Aastha Dhawan and Mr.Sidharth
Chopra, Advocates
versus
M/S NARANG MEDICINE CO. ..... Defendant
Through Mr.Anshu Mahajan and Mr.Ranjan
Kumar Rai, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
CS(OS) 2731/2012 & IA No.10420/2013
1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession
and ejectment against the defendant/partners of defendant in respect of suit
property Shop No.25, situated in property No.1520/II, Ground Floor,
Bhagirath Palace, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. Relief of damages and mesne
profits for the period April 2012 to August 2012 are also sought.
2. As per the averments in the plaint the plaintiff claims to be the
absolute owner of the suit property and the owner and landlord. The
defendant is described as a trespasser. Hence, the present suit for eviction.
3. The property was originally said to be owned by M/s. Munnalal Ram
Richpal a registered partnership firm which had let out the property to the
defendant for commercial use at a monthly rent of Rs.136/- per month. Due
to subsequent sale, the property stood transferred to M/s. Sudhir Kumar
Garg, Adhir Kumar Garg and Praveen Kumar & Sons. The said persons sold
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 1 of 16
the property to Mrs.Meeru Nagpal vide sale deed dated 8.4.2010. The
plaintiffs are said to have bought the property from the said Mrs.Meeru
Nagpal vide sale deed dated 9.4.2010.
4. The plaintiffs having purchased the suit property wrote a letter dated
13.10.2010 to the defendant pointing out about the purchase of the said
property by the plaintiff and claiming the agreed rent. It is stated that the
defendant duly received the said communication on 23.10.2010 and paid the
rent to the plaintiff w.e.f. 9.4.2010 to 31.3.2012 @ Rs.136/- per month vide
cheque drawn on ICICI Bank, Delhi. Plaintiff is stated to have issued a
rental receipt.
5. The plaintiffs it is urged being owners and landlords of the suit
property filed a petition under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement
and Clearance) Act, 1956 seeking permission from the authorities to file an
Eviction Petition against the defendant. It is urged that despite the defendant
having admitted and attorned to the plaintiff as owner and landlord, the
defendant filed a written statement in the said Eviction Petition denying the
title of the plaintiff to the suit property and denying the relationship of
landlord and tenant. It is urged that the denial of title of the plaintiff to the
suit property by the defendant in these facts and circumstances tantamounts
to repudiation/forfeiture of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the
defendant. Hence, it is urged that on account of repudiation and denial by
the defendant, the defendant ceased to be a tenant of the suit premises and
has become an unauthorised occupant. It is also submitted that no rent has
been tendered or offered w.e.f. 1.4.2012 by the defendant showing a
complete repudiation of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the
defendant. As the defendant continued to illegally occupy the suit property,
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 2 of 16
the plaintiff sent a notice dated 5.6.2012 whereby the defendant was called
upon to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises. The
defendant duly received the notice and sent a reply dated 23.6.2012 through
his advocate. Alongwith the said reply the defendant sent a cheque for
Rs.3,432/- purportedly being rental for 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2014. The plaintiffs
sent a rejoinder dated 4.7.2012 refuting the contentions of the defendant and
the cheque was returned back stating that the defendant is in unauthorised
and illegal use and occupation of the suit property and as such was liable to
pay damages and mesne profits.
6. The defendant has filed his written statement. In the written statement,
a preliminary objection has been raised that the suit is liable to be rejected in
view of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is further stated on
merits that the defendant nowhere in the written statement has denied the
title of the plaintiff in the tenanted premises. It is stated that the Transfer of
Property Act is not applicable. It is denied that the defendant has repudiated
the relationship as landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant at
any point of time. It is clarified that on receipt of letter dated 13.10.2010 the
defendant enquired from Shri Sudhir Kumar Garg, Shri Adhir Kumar Garg
and Shri Praveen Kumar Garg. The said persons requested the defendant to
tender the rent in favour of the plaintiff being the landlords of the suit
premises/tenanted premises. It is clarified that even in the rent receipt issued
on 23.10.2010 the plaintiffs never claimed ownership of the suit property. It
is clarified that the defendant had treated the plaintiff as the landlord of the
tenanted premises and, therefore, the rent was paid to them on receipt of
letter dated 13.10.2010. It is claimed that the defendant had challenged the
ownership of the plaintiff qua the suit property as the defendant had claimed
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 3 of 16
to be tenants under the tenancy of Shri Sudhir Kumar Garg, Adhir Kumar
Garg and Praveen Kumar Garg. It was on their instructions that rent was
tendered to the plaintiffs, who were landlords of the tenanted premises.
7. Plaintiffs filed IA No.10420/2013 under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
seeking a decree on admissions of the defendant.
8. When the matter was heard on 12.3.2011 both the parties submitted
that none of them would like to lead evidence and agreed that the suit could
be disposed off on the basis of documents already on record. Hence, the
following issues were framed:-
"(i) Whether there is a disclaimer of tenancy by the defendant
in terms of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882? If so, its effect? OPP
(ii) Relief."
9. By the present order I propose to dispose off the suit itself. Hence
there is no necessity to separately deal with the application being IA
No.10420/2013 under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. I will deal with issue No.1.
10. The genesis of the controversy pertains to the issue as to whether on
account of the averments in written statement filed by the defendant before
the competent authority Slum Areas in response to the application of the
plaintiff, is their forfeiture/repudiation of the relationship of landlord tenant
between the parties.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
12. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has strenuously relied upon
the written statement filed before the competent authority Slum Areas, Delhi
by the defendant to contend that there is a clear unequivocal denial of title of
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 4 of 16
the plaintiff by the defendant to the suit property and in view of section
111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, there is forfeiture of the relationship
of landlord and tenant. Hence, it is urged that the defendant is liable to be
evicted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this
Court in S.Makhan Singh vs. Smt.Amarjeet Bali, 154(2008) DLT 211
(DB)/ (MANU/DE/1544/2008). Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a
Division Bench of this court which affirmed the said judgment of the
learned Single Judge in the case of Naeem Ahmed vs. Yash Pal Malhotra,
188(2012) DLT 579/ (MANU/DE/2378/2012).
13. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has strenuously urged
that the written statement filed by the defendant before the concerned
authority would have to be read as a whole and merely reading a few stray
lines here and there is not permissible. He submits that there has been no
repudiation of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant. He
points out that the rent was duly tendered to the plaintiff as a landlord which
the plaintiff had refused to accept. Hence, two petitions have been filed
under Section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act which are pending. It is
submitted that the defendant only requested the plaintiff to prove his title to
the suit property inasmuch as earlier rent was being paid to some other
person. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheela
vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, 2002 (3) SCC 375
(MANU/SC/0150/2002) to contend that denial/disclaimer to lead to
forfeiture of tenancy has to be clear and unequivocal. Reliance is also placed
on the judgment in the case of Somti Prakash vs. Natha Bagha , AIR 1964
Punjab, 449.
14. I may first have a look at the legal position as regards forfeiture.
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 5 of 16
Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows:-
"Section 111-Determination of Lease-
A lease of immoveable property determines-
(g) by forfeiture; that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an
express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the
lessor may re-enter; or (2) in case the lessee renounces his
character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by
claiming title in himself; or (3) the lessee is adjudicated an
insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on
the happening of such event; and in any of these cases the
lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of
his intention to determine the lease"
15. Hence, where a lessee renounces his character by setting up a title in a
third person or claiming title in himself forfeiture of the lease would take
place.
16. Reference may be had to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in the case of S.Makhan Singh vs. Smt.Amarjeet Bali (supra).
That was a case where the respondent had filed an eviction petition before
the Rent Controller where the rent was stated to be Rs.500/- per month. In
reply the petitioner denied the title of the respondent over the suit property
and set up a title in himself and his wife. The respondent thereafter filed a
suit for possession of the property before the Civil Court. The learned Single
Judge held as follows:-
"5. A tenant has been given protection under Delhi Rent
Control Act from eviction only where the jural of tenant and
landlord was not disputed and the tenant claims himself to be
the tenant and not the owner. A perusal of Section 14, which
gives protection to a tenant against eviction, clearly shows that
this protection is available only to the person who is
undisputedly a tenant and does not claim himself to be the
owner of the premises. The moment a person refuses the title of
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 6 of 16
the landlord and claims title in himself he ceases to be a tenant
in the eyes of law and the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act
is not available to him. Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property
Act provides that a lease of immovable properties come to an
end by forfeiture in case of lessee renouncing his character as
such by setting up a title in a third person or claiming title in
himself. Thus, once a lease stands forfeited by operation of law,
the person in occupation of the premises cannot take benefit of
the legal tenancy. This provision under Section 111(g) is based
on public policy and the principle of estoppel. A person who
takes premises on rent from landlord is estopped from
challenging his title or right to let out the premises. If he does
so he does at his own peril and law does not recognize such a
person as legal tenant in the premises....."
17. The Division Bench of this Court in Naeem Ahmed vs. Yash Pal
Malhotra (supra) approved the above judgment and held as follows:-
"12. As aforesaid, in Kurella's case (supra) and Abdulla Bin
Ali's case (supra) when the tenants deny the title of the landlord
and the tenancy, the suit filed for recovery of possession is not
on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties, and would lie only in the civil suit and not
otherwise. In the present case also it is observed that in
response to the legal notice, the respondent No. 1 denied the
relationship of landlord and tenant and denied that the appellant
had let out the premises in suit to the respondent No. 1.
Consequently, the respondent No. 1 had repudiated and
renounced the relationship of landlord and tenant and set up his
own title in the property. Therefore, the appellant had filed the
suit for recovery of possession in the civil court since the
occupation of the respondent No. 1 had become unauthorized
and that of a trespasser."
18. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court
relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant in the case of Sheela vs.
Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (supra). In paragraph 16 the Supreme
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 7 of 16
Court held as follows:-
"16. After the creation of the tenancy if the title of landlord is
transferred or devolves upon a third person the tenant is not
estopped from denying such title. However, if the tenant having
been apprised of the transfer, assignment or devolution of rights
acknowledges the title of transferee either expressly or by
paying rent to him, the rule of estoppel once again comes into
operation for it is unjust to allow tenant to approbate and
reprobate and so long as the tenant enjoys everything which his
lease purports to grant how does it concern him what the title of
the lessor is [See Tej Bhan Madan v. II Additional District
Judge and Ors. - (1983) 3 SCC 137]. A denial of title which
falls foul of the rule of estoppel contained in Section 116 of
Evidence Act is considered in law a malicious act on the part of
the tenant as it is detrimental to the interest of the landlord and
does no good to the lessee himself. However, it has to be borne
in mind that since the consequences of applying the rule of
determination by forfeiture of tenancy as a result of denial of
landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant are very
serious, the denial or disclaimer must be in clear and
unequivocal terms )See - Majati Subbarao v.MANU/SC/0306
/1989 : P.V.K. Krishna Rao (deceased) by Lrs. -
AIR1989SC2187 , Kundan Mal v. GuruduttaMANU/SC
/0280/1989 : [1989]1SCR330 : [1989]1SCR330 and Raja
Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, (supra). We may quote with
advantage the law as stated by a Division Bench of Calcutta
High Court in Hatimullah and Ors. v. Mahamad Abju
Choudhary, MANU/WB/0110/1927 : AIR1928Cal312 . It was
held, "the principle of forfeiture by disclaimer is that where the
tenant denies the landlord's title to recover rent from him bona-
fide on the ground of seeking information of such title or
having such title established in a Court of law in order to
protect himself, he is not to be charged with disclaiming the
landlord's title. But where the disclaimer is done not with this
object but with an express repudiation of the tenancy under the
landlord, it would operate as forfeiture". (AIR p.315)
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 8 of 16
19. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Kundan Mal v. Gurudutta, (1989) 1
SCC 552/( MANU/SC/0280/1989) held as follows:
"In providing disclaimer as a ground for eviction of a tenant in
Clause (f) of Section 13(1) of the Act, the Legislature decided
to give effect to the provisions of Clause (g) of Section 111 of
the Transfer of Property Act. The principle of forfeiture on
disclaimer is founded on the rule that a man cannot approbate
and reprobate at the same time. Since the consequence of
applying the rule is very serious, it must be held that the denial
has to be clear and in unequivocal terms."
20. Hence repudiation of tenancy by the tenant would follow only where
the tenant has unequivocally repudiated the tenancy and set up a title either
in himself or in a third person. The disclaimer has to be clear and in
unequivocal terms. Merely denying title by a landlord bona fide on the
ground of seeking information of such title does not amount to repudiation
or forfeiture of the tenancy.
21. We may now look at the relevant facts of the present case. The
plaintiff is stated to have purchased the suit property by a registered sale
deed on 9.4.2010. On 13.10.2010 written intimation was sent to the
defendant pointing out that previously rent was being paid to Mr.Sudhir
Kumar Garg, Mr.Adhir Kumar Garg and Mr.Praveen Kumar Garg and that
now the plaintiff is the owner by virtue of sale deed dated 9.4.2010. There is
no dispute that the defendant received this communication. Defendant has in
response to this communication paid rent to the plaintiff as per the plaintiff
on 23.10.2010 for the period 9.4.2010 to 31.3.2012 @ Rs.136/- per month.
It is the case of the plaintiff that thereafter no rent has been paid by the
defendant.
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 9 of 16
22. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application dated 18.11.2011 under
section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956
seeking permission for instituting a suit/proceedings for eviction of the
defendant and other reliefs in the Eviction Petition. In the reply that was
filed by the defendant which is dated 30.3.2012 the defendant has denied the
title of the plaintiff to the suit property. Relevant portion of the Petition filed
by the plaintiff under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956
reads as follows:
"2. That the above-named Smt.Meeru Nagpal, vide Sale
Deed dated 9th April, 2010 duly registered with the office of
Sub-registrar-I, Delhi as Document No.2,935 in Volume
No.3,272 on pages no.170 to 178 on 13th April, 2010, sold the
aforesaid shops, i.e. two shops bearing private No.25 and 25-A
(1520/25 & 25-A), measuring 354 sq.ft. equal to 32.90
sq.meters approx, situated on the ground floor of Building
No.1520, Bhagirath Place, chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006,
without its roof/terrace rights, to the Petitioners. Thus, the
petitioners have become the sole and absolute owners of the
said shops with effect from 9th April, 2010.
4. That on purchase of the aforesaid petition by the
Petitioner herein, the Respondent became the tenant of the
Petitioners by operation of law on the same terms and condition
under which the respondent was occupying the shop under
Smt.Meeru Nagpal.
5. That the Respondent also paid rent in respect of the
disputed shop to the petitioners for the period from 9 th April,
2010 to 31st March, 2012 at the rate of Rs.136/- (Rupees One
Hundred Thirty Six Only), vide cheque No.235056 dated 23rd
October, 2010 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Chandni Chowk
Branch, 1820, Near Sis Ganj, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
for a sum of Rs,3,228/- (Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred
Twenty Eight only), and accordingly, the petitioner issued a
Rent Receipt bearing no.23 dated 23rd October, 2010 in respect
of the said cheque to the respondent. Copy of the said receipt
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 10 of 16
duly acknowledged by the respondent is being annexed
herewith.
6. That accordingly the respondent, M/s. Narang Medicine
Co., is a tenant in the shop bearing private No.25 (1520/25),
situated on the ground floor of building No.1520, Bhagirath
Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, more particularly shown
in red colour in the site plan annexed herewith, at a monthly
rent of Rs.136/- (Rupees One hundred thirty six only) under the
petitioners."
23. The relevant part of the reply of the defendant to said paras of the
petition filed by the plaintiffs read as follows:-
"2. That the contents of Para 2 of the petition are wrong and
denied. It is denied that Smt.Neeru Nagpal sold the said shop
No.25 to the petitioner vide sale deed dated 09th April 2010. It
is denied that the petitioner is the owner of the shop No.25 in
any manner.
3....
4. That the contents of Para 4 of the petition are wrong and
denied. It is denied that respondent has become the tenant of the
petitioner by operation of law. There is no relation of landlord
and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.
5. That the contents of para 5 of the petition are admitted to the
extent that the respondent has paid the rent to the petitioner as
her being the landlord without admitting her as the owner of the
shop in Question. Rest of the para are wrong and denied.
6. That the contents of Para 6 of the petition are admitted that
the respondent is the tenant of the shop bearing private No.25
measuring 354 Sq.ft.situated on the ground floor of the building
No.1520, Bhagirath Place. Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006."
24. The plaintiff thereafter sent a legal notice on 5.6.2012 seeking
possession of the suit property. In a reply sent by counsel for the defendant
on 23.6.2012 it was sought to be clarified that the rent was initially paid to
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 11 of 16
the plaintiff as representative of Shri Sudhir Kumar Garg, Adhir Kumar
Garg and Praveen Garg. It is further claimed that the advance rent from
1.4.2012 to 31.3.2014 was sent by money order on 26.3.2012 but was
refused by the plaintiff. In the course of arguments it is stated that two
petitions have now been filed under section 27 of the DRC Act as the
plaintiff has refused to accept the rent. In the meantime, the plaintiff has
withdrawn the petition under the Slum Areas Act.
25. A perusal of the Petition and reply filed in the proceeding under the
Slum Areas Act shows that the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff
to the suit property and also denied the relationship of landlord tenant. The
defendant, however, admits being a tenant but does not in the said reply
stipulate the owner of the suit property. What is noteworthy is that the
denial of title has taken place despite the fact that rent has been paid to the
plaintiffs for the period 9.4.2010 i.e. date of sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff till 31.3.2012 at the agreed rate of Rs.136/- per month. Thereafter
till the filing of the reply no payment has been tendered to the plaintiff.
26. The act of the defendant is contrary to section 116 of the Indian
Evidence Act which reads as under:-
116. Estoppel of tenant; and of license 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 license of the person in possession
thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to
such possession at the time when license was given.
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 12 of 16
27. In my opinion, denial of title by the defendant was mischievous. It
was an attempt to set up title in a third party and in view of provisions of
Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act it is a clear Act forfeiture of
the lease. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Sheela vs. Firm Prahlad
Rai Prem Prakash (supra) the act of denial of title which falls foul of
section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is a malicious Act detrimental to the
interest of the landlord. The act was not bonafide or an attempt to bonafidely
verify the title of the plaintiff by the defendant.
28. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K.
Krishna Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 732/ MANU/SC/0306/1989 dealt with a case of
almost similar facts. The respondent in that petition was the owner/landlord.
The appellant- tenant in his counter to the eviction petition alleged that the
property in which the premises was situated was the property of a trust of
which the respondent was a de facto trustee and the respondent had no
personal or proprietary interest in the said property. That case was filed
under the Andhra Pradesh Rent Act. The observations were made in
reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kundan Mal v.
Gurudutta (supra) as follows:
"In our view, this decision is hardly of any assistance to the
learned counsel. The principle laid down in that case is that in
order to constitute a ground for eviction, the denial of title has
to be clear and in unequivocal terms. In the present case, the
facts found show that the denial of title of the respondent by the
appellant was in clear and unequivocal terms."
29. Reference may also be had to another judgment of the Supreme Court
in Keshar Bai vs. Chunulal, AIR 2014 SC 1394; MANU/SC/0003/2014
which also was pronounced in somewhat similar facts. In that case the
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 13 of 16
appellant/landlady purchased the house by a registered sale deed. At the
time of purchase of the said building, the respondent tenant was occupying
one room. The respondent on being informed that the appellant is the new
landlady agreed to pay the rent but failed to pay it. The appellant filed a suit
for eviction of the respondent under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act,
1961. In the written statement the respondent denied the title of the appellant
apart from denying the grounds on which eviction was sought. In those facts
and circumstances the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"13. There is a specific reference to the registered document
under which the Appellant purchased the suit building from
the earlier landlord in the plaint. Yet, in the written statement
the Respondent denied the title of the Appellant. We notice
that there are several documents on record relating to the
ownership of the Appellant, apart from the registered sale
deed, such as municipal tax receipts, ration card etc. Yet, the
Respondent refused to acknowledge the Appellant's title. He
denied it in his evidence. This is not a simple case of denial
of derivative title by a person who did not know about the
purchase of the building by the landlord. Even after going
through the relevant documents relating to the Appellant's
title the Respondent feigned ignorance about it. The High
Court has accepted that in his cross-examination the
Respondent has stated that he was not accepting the
Appellant as his landlady. The High Court has, however,
gone on to say that by this piece of evidence no decree of
eviction can be passed against the Respondent under
Section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Act because the Respondent will
have no occasion to establish in what circumstances he
denied the title of the Appellant. The High Court has further
held that the Respondent was within permissible limit in
asking the Appellant to produce documentary evidence about
his title as a landlord. The High Court, in our opinion, fell
into a grave error in drawing such a conclusion. Even denial
of a landlord's title in the written statement can provide a
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 14 of 16
ground for eviction of a tenant. It is also settled position in
law that it is not necessary that the denial of title by the
landlord should be anterior to the institution of eviction
proceedings. This is so stated by this Court in Majati
Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishnarao (deceased) by
L.Rs. MANU/SC/0306/1989 : (1989) 4 SCC 732."
30. There is one more fact which may also be gone into. As per the
written statement filed by the defendant, the rent for the period 01.04.2012
to 31.03.2013 @ Rs. 136/- per month and from 01.04.2013 till 31.03.3014
@ Rs. 150/- per month has been tendered to the plaintiff by the defendant
vide cheque No.252213 dated 18.03.2012 drawn on ICICI Bank, Chandni
Chow, Delhi - 110006 which has been refused by the plaintiff. The
defendant has hence filed the petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act.
31. In replication, the plaintiff has denied that any such rent was tendered
vide cheque dated 18.03.2012. There is no evidence also filed by the
defendant to prove any such tendering of rent.
32. The averment of the defendant in written statement are at variance
with the stand in the application filed by the defendant under Section 27 of
the Rent Control Act, certified copy of which has been placed on record by
the defendant. As per the said petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act, a
money order was sent to the plaintiff on 26.03.2012 for Rs.3432/- which was
returned and received back on 30.03.2012. Thereafter, cheque No.252213
dated 18.06.2012 for Rs.3432/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Chandni Chowk was
sent and refused and returned back on 06.07.2012. Hence, the cheque
No.252213 drawn on ICICI Bank was actually tendered as per this petition
on 18.06.2012, i.e. much after filing of the reply under the Slum Areas Act
by the defendant. Whereas in the written statement, it is said to be dated
CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 15 of 16
18.03.2012. The written statement mentions nothing about the money order
allegedly sent on 26.3.2012. There is clear inconsistency in the stand of the
defendant. The averments of having tendered rent to the plaintiff for the
period 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2014 are neither proved nor can be believed. These
facts will also have no bearing on the contentions raised.
33. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the defendant has acted mala
fidely. The defendant in its reply before the concerned authority, despite
being aware of a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and despite
paying rent to the plaintiff for two years, denied the title of the plaintiff and
the relationship of landlord and tenant. Title is sought to be set up in a third
party. Accordingly, I hold that there is forfeiture of the tenancy by the
defendant. Issue No.1 is decided accordingly.
34. In view of the above, a decree of possession is passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant for property Shop No.25, situated in
property No.1520/II, Ground Floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi as shown in site plan Annexure A to the Plaint.
35. As no evidence has been led by the plaintiff, the other relief of mesne
profit and damages is disallowed. Suit is disposed off.
36. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to costs. All pending applications also
stand disposed off.
JAYANT NATH, J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2015 n/v CS(OS) 2731/2012 Page 16 of 16