Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18.He further stated that respondent no. 1 is the tenant of respondent no. 2 and 3 in respect of only two rooms with common bath and court yard which is shown in red in the site plan Ex.RW1/1. The respondent initially paid the rent to late Sh. K.C. Marwah through money order which was received accordingly, but subsequently he started defaulting in making payments of rent which led to the filing of the petition under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, 1958 Ex.RW1/3. Respondent no. 1 deposited the rent in the court under section 15(1) of DRC Act and subsequently the matter was compromised before the court of Hon'ble Rent Controller, Delhi on 13.03.1997 and respondent no. 1 promised to pay the rent regularly. However, the amount of rent was very meager and the landlord continuously insisted for increasing the rent to maintain the premises accordingly, but the respondent no. 1 failed to do so. Again accepting him to be tenant in respect of aforesaid portion, respondent no. 1, filed petition under section 44 of DRC Act Ex.RW1/4 and the same was decided by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.05.2005 whereby the court had only permitted the respondent no. 1 to carry out required repairs, i.e. replacing the wooden karies of the said two rooms, repair the leaking roof, floors and walls. But in the garb of the said order, the respondent no. 1 in gross violation of the order dated 30.05.2005 instead of repairing the rooms made further new constructions on the ground floor as well as on the first floor and a permanent stair case which was not existing at the inception of the tenancy or even prior to the filing of the petition under Section 44 of DRC Act. Respondent no. 1 committed the contempt of the court and has E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai even trespassed in the portions of the premises which were never let out to him at any point of time either by late sh. K.C. Marwah or his LRs i.e. respondent no. 2 and 3. Respondent no. 2 and 3/LRs reserve their rights to file a separate contempt petition against the respondent no. 1 in the appropriate court. After the demise of Sh. K.C. Marwah on 24.05.2006, the said property was mutated in the name of Smt. Sudarshan Devi, respondent no. 2 being LR/widow of late Sh. K.C. Marwah vide order dated 30.04.2007 Ex.RW1/5. Original sale deed dated 05.07.1965 between Ch. Priya Vart S/o Ch. Lekhi Ram R/o Village Khyala Delhi State, the vendor Sh. K.C Marwah S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram Marwah R/o T/1998, Ashok Nagar Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the Vendee, had gone missing after the death of Sh. K.C. Marwah on 24.05.2006 and this fact is published in Public Notice in the newspaper, Indian Express dated 07.08.2006 Ex.PW1/6 by counsel of Smt. Sudarshan Devi, respondent no. 2 warning everybody against any dealing with any one with regard to all her properties including this property and that if any one does so he/she shall be doing so at his/her own risk and responsibility for which Smt. Sudarshan Devi shall not in any manner be responsible and she shall be further entitled to nullify any/all such transactions as and when she comes to know of the same, so that nobody can misuse the missing document and also Smt. Sudarshan Devi respondent no. 2 informing the concerned authorities like police and the Sub Registrar. Further, respondent no. 3 reiterated the averments made in the written statement. He relied upon the documents i.e. receipt of payment of rent for six months upto November, 2006 by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2, notices dated 23.09.2006, 14.03.2007 and 21.03.2007, reply dated 03.10.2006 to the legal demand notice dated 23.09.2006, decree dated 22.09.2011 passed in favour of respondent no. 2 and 3, cross examination of Sh. Madan lal Nishad dated 30.05.2015 in the execution court of Ms. Anjani Mahajan, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi on 28.02.2014 and Sh. Sunil Kumar Witness was examined before the court of ARC on 27.08.2015 in the said court on 07.11.2014. The said documents alongwith documents mentioned above are Ex.RW1/1, Ex.RW1/2, Ex.RW1/5, Ex.RW1/12, Mark-A to Mark-H. The documents mentioned in the affidavit as Ex.RW1/7, Ex.RW1/9 and Ex.RW1/10 are not on record and as such the same were de-exhibited.

E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai

19.RW1 Sh. Arun Kuma Marwah was cross examined on 08.10.2015 on behalf of petitioner wherein he stated that he retired as a Director from Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances and Pension. No SPA has been executed by respondent no. 2 in his favour to contest the present petition and volunteered that he is son and AR of the respondent no. 2 and copy of the authority letter is already on record. He has not filed any ID proof of respondent no. 2 or himself and volunteered that he brought his driving licence. He has not filed any ID proof of K.C. Marwah of A-69, Pandav Nagar, Opposite Shadipur Depot, New Delhi and volunteered that all the court proceedings filed by him bear the same address of K.C. Marwah and himself. He has ID proof of A-69, Pandav Nagar, Opposite Shadipur Depot, New Delhi, however, he has not filed the same on record. He denied that he does not have ID proof of A-69, Pandav Nagar, Opposite Shadipur Depot, New Delhi. His father Sh. K.C. Marwah retired from Govt. Service in October, 1981 and he died on 24.05.2006. After the death of his father, his mother respondent no. 2 herein started getting family pension from the department. He has not filed any document to show that his mother is getting pension from the department and volunteered that he can produce the same, if so directed. He denied the suggestion that respondent no. 2 was not wife of Sh. K.C. Marwah or that she was not getting pensionary benefits of Late K.C. Marwah. He has not filed death certificate of Sh. K.C. Marwah on record and volunteered that he can produce the same, if so directed. He further denied the suggestion that he is not having death certificate of Sh. K.C. Marwah in his possession. He further stated that one or one and half month after the death of his father Sh. K.C. Marwah, he came to know about missing of the Sale Deed dated 05.07.1965 Mark-A. A police complaint to this effect was lodged with PS Tilak Nagar and with the office of Commissioner of Police, ITO, New Delhi. He denied that any police complaint was not lodged with PS Tilak Nagar and with the office of Commissioner of Police, ITO, New Delhi about missing of aforesaid documents. Further, he stated that publication Mark-E was made in respect of missing of documents mark-A on 07.08.2006. The said missing documents consist of 3-4 pages and volunteered that the photocopies of said missing sale deed/documents are already mark-A on record. The site plan was not enclosed with the said missing sale deed mark-A. The property in E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai question is measuring 150 sq. yards. He further denied the suggestion that the suit bearing no. 8/08 Mark-F was a collusive suit. He further denied the suggestion that K.C. Marwah had already sold the property to Madan Lal Nishad, petitioner herein on 14.01.2004 vide GPA and other relevant documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, before publication of missing documents dated 07.08.2006. He denied that Sh. K.C. Marwah had handed over original sale deed dated 05.07.1965 in respect of property in question to Sh. Madan Lal Nishad at the time of execution of GPA dated 14.01.2004. He further denied that they have wrongly published the public notice Mark-E. He further denied that they, intentionally and deliberately in order to grab the property of the petitioner, published a public notice in respect of property in question. He further denied that he knew that K.C. Marwah had already sold the property in question to petitioner, at the time of filing of suit bearing no. 8/08 Mark-F. He further denied that petitioner is owner of the property in question and he is entitled to receive the rent from respondent no. 1. The sale deed 05.07.1965 was in possession of Marwah family which was consisting of himself, his father, mother, his two daughters at that time. The sale deed 05.07.1965 was kept at house No. A-69, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi from where it was misplaced. The missing articles consist of sale deed dated 05.07.1965, certain house hold articles, bank passbooks and other documents. They were living jointly and severally at three places i.e. A-69, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi, S-32, First Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and WZ-221/59, Block-S, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, Khyala, New Delhi. He admitted that he has not filed any document which shows that he was residing at WZ-221/59, Block-S, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, Khyala, New Delhi. No FIR has been lodged in respect of missing articles, however, police complaints have been lodged. He has not filed any complaint case for lodging the FIR in court. He further denied that any documents have been misplaced from his possession.

34.The respondent no. 2 and 3 have stated in their WS that Sh. Ram Sahay the respondent no. 1 who used to pay rent to Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah till his death on 24.05.2006, thereafter paid rent for six months from June to November, 2006 to Smt. Sudarshan Devi the respondent no. 2, DH, wife and legal heir to Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah.

35.The respondent no. 3/ RW1 has stated in his deposition that the said property was mutated in the name of Smt. Sudarshan Devi, respondent no. 2 being LR/widow of late Sh. K.C. Marwah vide order dated 30.04.2007 Ex.RW1/5. Original sale deed dated 05.07.1965 between Ch. Priya Vart S/o Ch. Lekhi Ram R/o Village Khyala Delhi State, the vendor Sh. K.C Marwah S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram Marwah R/o T/1998, Ashok Nagar Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the Vendee, had gone missing after the death of Sh. K.C. Marwah on 24.05.2006. The photocopies of said missing sale deed/documents are already mark-A on record. The sale deed 05.07.1965 was kept at house No. A-69, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi from where it was misplaced. No FIR has been lodged in respect of missing articles, however, police complaints have been lodged. He has not filed any complaint case for lodging the FIR in court