High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment dated 7th February, 2020 passed by the Trial Court. By the impugned judgment, the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent has been dismissed by the Trial Court.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner and Respondent are brothers. The Respondent is the tenant in the half portion admeasuring 37-1/2 sq. yards of the suit property, which is a residential property. The Trial Court granted leave to defend to the tenant. Thereafter, the matter proceeded before the Trial Court. Vide the final judgment dated 7th February, 2020, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition on two primary grounds. First, the suit property has been identified by the Petitioner to be located in Shakarpur, whereas Shakarpur and Mandawali Fazalpur are two different localities. Hence, the Petitioner has failed to prove the ownership of the suit property. Secondly, the Trial Court has held that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the identity of the property was never in question in these proceedings. Reliance is placed upon a reply given by the Respondent, to the legal notice issued by the Petitioner, wherein the Respondent clearly claims ownership in the property located in Shakarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. It was submitted that the Respondent never challenged the identity of the property, in the said reply. Thus, the Court could not have held that these are two separate properties, and that the ownership thereof has not been proved by the Petitioner. He further submitted that the Trial Court has clearly gone beyond the mandate of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act itself.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the documents, which have been placed on record including the General Power of Attorney, describes the seller, from whom the Petitioner’s parents purchased the suit property, as a resident of B-7, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi. However, he submits that the sale is of the property in Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi. It was submitted that even the sale deed shows that the property, which is being sold is at Mandawali Fazalpur, and not Shakarpur. He further submitted that Mandawali is 5 km away from Shakarpur.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court opined that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is extremely cryptic. The same specifically records that several witnesses had deposed on behalf of the parties, and a large number of documents were also exhibited. However, there is no analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties at all. Court also opined that if there was a dispute as to the identity of the suit property, the Trial Court ought to have discussed the evidence on record, in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the two properties are the same, or not. Court found that the Trial Court also arrives at the finding that there is no document to prove the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Court stated that it cannot, therefore, be conclusively stated that the identity of these two properties i.e., the suit property and the property sold as per the sale deed, are different. One has to bear in mind the fact that prior to urbanization of colonies in Delhi, no proper plot numbers were allotted. Court stated that the Trial Court would thus have to peruse the basis on which title has been claimed by the Petitioner, as also, on the basis of which the title has been claimed by the Respondent, who is alleged to have purchased the property in 1988 from one Shri Manni Ram.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the identity of the property does not appear to have been in issue in the eviction petition. These documents ought to be examined in detail by the Trial Court, in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the Respondent has any right to retain the said property as also whether there is in fact any dispute as to the identity of the property at all. If there is no such dispute relating to the identity of the suit property, the Trial Court shall proceed in the matter, in accordance with law, under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court.”
HC allowed the petition.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case Title: Ram Kishan v. Satya Vir Singh (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs & Anr.
Case Details: C.R.P. 51/2020 & CM APPL. 10690/2020
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
