B.N. Saxena vs Joginder Singh
1991 Latest Caselaw 466 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This is an appeal by the defendant from the Judgment and decree dated 12 May, 1972 of the learned Commissioner Sub judge, Delhi, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 16,200.00 .

(2) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 27,450.00 towards arrears of rent claiming himself to be the owner and landlord of a certain property situated at Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi, of which defendant was stated to be the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00 . The defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and raised- certain other pleas.

(3) On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 2. Whether the claim of the plaintiff regarding arrears of rent of the period beyond three years before the filing of the suit i¯ within time ? Opd 3. Whether the entire claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation 7 Opd 4. Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder or misjoinder of parties or causes of action as alleged ? If so, its effect ? Opd 5. Whether the plaint discloses no causes of action, if so, its effect ? Opd 6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest ? If so, at what rate, for what period and on what amount ? Opp 7. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35(a) Civil Procedure Code . ? Opp 8. Relief,

(4) The Court held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and .also held that arrears of rent for a period more than three years were not recoverable. Issue No. 3 was decided accordingly Issues 4 and 5 were held in favor of the plaintiff and issue No. 6 against him. On issue No. 7 the Court held that there was no question of any special costs. The Court also did not grant any future interest to the plaintiff. The appeal was listed yesterday and again today. Nobody appeared for the respondent- plaintiff. The main issue in the suit was issue No. 1. The onus of this issue was on the defendant, now appellant before us. The trial Court after examining the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In this regard the Court relied upon the statements of the plaintiff and the defendant in rebuttal. The defendant had said that it was Mela Singh who was the landlord of the premises and not the plaintiff. The plaintiff said Mela Singh was his attorney and had let out the premises on his behalf. The case of the plaintiff is supported by documents : (1) Ext. P-1 which is an agreement for lease in respect of the plot of land on which the suit property had been built whereby the land was held on perpetual leasehold basis by the plaintiff from the President of India as the Lesser; (2) Ext. P-2 (rent agreement) wherein it is mentioned that this agreement was entered into between Mela Singh as attorney of Joginder Singh and the defendant; (3) letters Exts. P-3, P-4, P-5, P-8 and P-9 whereby the defendant sent the rent by means of cheques drawn in favor of the plaintiff; (4) Ext.P-10 which is the notice from the New Delhi Municipal Committee to the plaintiff inviting objections to the proposed increase in rateable value of the property in question; (5) Ext. P.11I which is a letter again from the New Delhi Municipal Committee to the plaintiff requiring him to, give the names of the occupants of the property in question including the rent payable by them; and (6) Exts. P-6 and P-7 which are replies to the notices lent by the plaintiff to the defendant through his advocate. These replies are by the advocate of the defendant. All these documents and statement of the plaintiff unmistakably show that he is the owner and landlord of the premises in question and that the defendant has been paying rent to him by means of cheques drawn in the name of the plaintiff. From today's rate standard rent at the rate of Rs. 450.00 per month in a portion of the property situated at. Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi, is very nominal. Yet the defendant has sought to raise dispute and filed this appeal against a judgment which is well written and has taken into consideration all the aspects of the case. The plaintiff has been deprived of the rent for a period more than three years probably because he brought the suit late and beyond the period of limitation, The learned trial Court has recorded that. the plaintiff had also filed a petition for eviction against the defendant but that petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy. That was the law which bad prevailed earlier. We do not find any substance in the appeal. Dr. Ghosh, however, tried to show with reference to document Ext. Dw 1/1, a rent receipt dated 17.6.1957, wherein Mela Singh is stated to have .received a sum of Rs. 450.00 as rent from the defendant as advance rent for "my bungalow No. 79/48, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi." It is also mentioned in the receipt that rent would start from 20th June, 1957, and the balance for five months rent would be paid at the time of signing of rent agreement as agreed. The rent agreement Ext. P-2 has already been referred to above. Dr. Ghosh said this rent receipt itself constituted a rent agreement between the parties and any reference to Ext. P-2 was inappropriate. He also said document Ext. P-1 was not registered and was not properly stamped and was, thus, inadmissible in evidence. No such pleas were taken in the trial Court and these do not find mention even in the grounds of appeal, Ext. P-1 is a duly registered document and there had been no objection to Ext. P-2 when it was exhibited : It is too late in the day to raise any such objection. There is sufficient evidence even otherwise in the form of letters written by the defendant by which he sent rent by means of cheques drawn in the name of the plaintiff. During the course of arguments we were told that no person other than the plaintiff has ever claimed rent in respect of the suit premises from the defendant.

(5) We find no merit in the appeal and would dismiss the same with costs which we quantify at Rs. l,000.00 and would be payable to Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice, Chamber No. 3, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. This is so as nobody appeared for the respondent-plaintiff.