Om Prkash vs Shri Brij Bhushan
1998 Latest Caselaw 582 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction simplicitor. Pending the suit, in the application I.A. 4451/93, he has prayed for injunction. He claims tenancy with reference to the basement and ground floor in premises No. 18-A, New Colony, (Jhabu Mal Colony), Behind Filmistan Cinema, New Delhi on a rent of Rs. 750/- per month from the mother of the plaintiff Mrs. Pushpa Wanti. He also claims tenancy with reference to basement, first floor, 2nd floor, terrace portion and open space (rear at back on the ground floor) of an extent of 45' x 12' on a monthly rent of Rs.2,700/- from Smt. Pushpa Wanti. The case of the plaintiff could be tersely stated in the following terms.

2. The plaintiff's father was Manohar Lal, mother was Smt. Pushpa Wanti. They had four sons and one daughter. Benarsi Lal, Om Parkash (plaintiff), Brij Bhushan (first defendant), Surinder and Usha Rani (second defendant). Surinder is no more. His widow is Veena Makkar. During his lifetime, late Manohar Lal executed a Will on 4.4.1972 with reference to the premises bearing No. 18-A giving life interest to Smt.Pushpa Wanti and vested remained in his four sons Banarsi Lal, Surinder Kumar, Brij Bhushan and Om Parkash in equal shares. Premises bearing No. 19, New Colony belonged absolutely to Smt. Pushpa Wanti by virtue of sale deed dated 26.2.1979. The specific pleading in regard to tenancy of portions in premises No. 18A, New Colony in paragraph 4 it is stated:-

"That on 20.11.1992 Smt. Pushpa Wanti let out the basement and the ground floor of the property No. 18A, New Colony (Jhabu Mal Colony), Behind Filmistan Cinema, New Delhi to the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 750/- for commercial purposes.

Although the agreement is dated 20.11.92 but the plaintiff got possession of the premises on the 25.11.1992 when the rent was first paid against receipt. The said payment was made by crossed cheque to Smt. Pushpa. In fact the rent upto June, 1993 stands paid to her. After the first payment of Rs.750/- against receipt the subsequent payment of rent has been made by crossed cheque to her."

With reference to premises No. 19, the pleading by the plaintiff is :-

"That on the same day, Smt. Pushpa Wanti also let out the basement,first floor and the second floor and terrace and the open space 45 ft x 12 ft on the ground floor (rear set back) of the property No. 19, New Colony (Jhabhu Mal Colony), Model Basti, New Delhi-110005 at a rental of Rs. 2700/- p.m. The tenancy agreement dt. 20.11.1992 was executed by Smt.Pushpa Wanti in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was given the possession of the premises on the 25.11.1992 when he paid the rent from 25.11.1992. This payment was made by crossed cheque to her. The rent upto June, 1993 in respect of the premises No. 19, New Colony (Jhabhu Mal Colony) Model Basti, New Delhi-110005 stands paid to the Smt. Pushpa Wanti by crossed cheques."

3. According to the plaintiff, disputes had arisen between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The defendants tried to interfere the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as tenant and, therefore, he had to file the suit for injunction. The plaint was presented on 30.4.1993. In the cause of action paragraph, it is stated:-

"That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the defendants about two days back refused to see reasons, and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises both from 18A and 19, New Colony (Jhabhu Mal Colony), Model Basti, New Delhi-110005 as shown in the plan annexed."

4. Defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement on 27.7.1993. The gist of the case put forth by the defendants 1 and 2 is:

Late Manohar Lal, the father had only 1/5th share in premises No. 18A and the Will was only in respect of his 1/5th share. The rest of the 4/5th share belonged to the four sons. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that father had absolute interest in premises No. 18A is not correct. Regarding the tenancy, defendants 1 and 2 would state in the written statement :-

"The sons, a daughter, and daughters-in-law of the deceased Manohar Lal, figure as partners in a number of partnership firms which carried or are carrying on businesses in various names and styles at Aligarh,Delhi and Madras. One of such firms is M/s Raja Industries at Aligarh and Delhi in which the partners at present are the three brothers, namely, Banarsi Lal, Om Parkash (plaintiff herein) and Brij Bhushan (defendant herein), and their mother Smt. Pushpa Wanti. Another firm of this family is M/s Raja Scrap Traders which is in existence for the last more than twenty years. Its present partners are Om Parkash (plaintiff) Brij Bhushan (defendant No. 1) Banarsi Lal, Usha Rani (defendant No. 2) and Smt. Pushpa Wanti aforementioned. The third firm of the family is running in the name and style of M/s Raja Steel Traders which came into existence on 1.4.1988, with Usha Rani (defendant No. 2) Veena Makkar widow of Surendra Kumar and Veena Rani wife of Brij Bhushan defendant No. 1 as partners. This firm was dissolved on 31.3.1989, and revived on 1.4.1989 with Usha Rani (defendant No. 2), Brij Bhushan (defendant No. 1) and Om Parkash (plaintiff) as partners. A deed of partnership was executed by all the three partners of the new firm on 6.4.1989. This firm is carrying on the partnership business with its head office at No. 19 New Colony, Delhi and administrative and sales office at Madras.

Smt. Pushpa Wanti, who is the owner of No. 19 Jhabhumal New Colony Delhi and owner of a life-estate to the extent of one-fifth share in No. 18-A in the said Colony, executed two lease deeds on 19.5.1988, one in respect of basement, ground and mezanine floors of No. 19, and the second in respect of the basement, ground and mezzanine floors of No. 18A aforementioned, as lessor, in favour of M/s Raja Steel Traders have been and are paying the rent of both the lease hold premises regularly to Smt. Pushpa Wanti and obtaining rent receipts in lieu of such payments.

The plaintiff, Om Parkash, as partner of M/s Raja Scrap Traders, executed lease deeds on 27.5.1988, one in respect of vacant site and the A.C.C. shed erected thereon, situate in Kamaraj Park Street, Raja Puram, Madras, the second in respect of a similar site and shed, situate in Thiruvotliyur, Madras and 12 Lotus Ramaswamy Street, Madras, as lessor, in favour of M/s Raja Steel Traders aforementioned as lessees on a rental of Rs. 800/- and Rs. 600/- and Rs.1000/- per mensem respectively. The term of both the said lease is from 1.5.1988 to 30.4.1993."

According to defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff had forged the alleged lease deed. Defendants 1 & 2 would state :-

"Of course, plaintiff Om Parkash is also in possession of the disputed premises as a partner of M/s Raja Steel Traders which he is now trying to abuse and exploit by misrepresenting the same to be a possession held under the forged deeds, dated 20.11.1992 mentioned above."

Defendants 1 & 2 denied that Manohar Lal was the owner of property No. 18A New Delhi. Defendants 1 & 2 had also mentioned :-

"The so-called deeds of agreement and the rent receipts adverted to in these two paragraphs of the plaint are all fabricated and forged documents. Smt. Pushpawanti has since approached various public authorities complaining how she has been kept in wrongful confinement and under threats to her life by the plaintiff for the last several months. It is during the said period that the plaintiff manufactured these documents with a view to ousting by force the answering defendants from the partnership business of M/s Raja Steel Traders and the lease-hold properties of the said firm."

5. The plaintiff did not implead the mother as a party in the first instance. On the objection by defendants 1 & 2, she was imp leaded as a party. The mother after she became a third defendant filed a written statement on 1.9.1994. She stated in the written statement that her husband late Manohar Lal owned only 1/5th undivided share in premises No. 18A, New Colony. She denied having executed any document on 20.11.1992. She denied that she put the plaintiff in possession of the premises on 20.11.1992. She had been receiving rents with respect to both the premises let out to Raja Steel Traders. She had executed a gift deed dated 2.9.1993 giving half undivided share in premises No. 19, New Colony to Smt. Usha Rani, the second defendant and the other half share to her grand son Mr. Bharat Bhushan. Since then Raja Steel Traders have been paying rent with reference to premises No. 19 to Usha Rani (second defendant) and Mr. Bharat Bhushan. According to the third defendant, the alleged rent deeds dated 20.11.1992 are forged and fabricated documents and they do not bear her signatures. According to the third defendant, she was not in a position to sign and she was only capable of putting her thumb impression. According to the third defendant:-

"The plaintiff had further misused certain blank signed cheques of defendant No. 3, which were lying in the custody of the plaintiff, who being the son of defendant No. 3, was at times doing the banking transactions on behalf of defendant No. 3. The defendant No. 3 immediately after acquiring knowledge of the fraud and forgery committed by the plaintiff, issued a public notice in the daily newspaper "Punjab Kesri" in its issue dated 30.5.1993 through her Advocate Shri S.B. Mathur."

The plaintiff was exercising pressure on her when she did not accede to the imaginations she was tortured by the plaintiff. She made a complaint under Sections 97 and 98 of the Code Criminal Procedure by the first defendant and her statement was recorded by Sh. S. Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 9.7.1993. Third defendant had instituted a suit for declaration in this Court in suit No. 750/94.

6. The plaintiff filed a list of documents on 30.4.1993. The documents are as follows :-

"1. Tenancy agreement dt. 20.11.92 in respect of premises No. 18-A New Colony, Delhi-5.

2. Rent Receipt dt. 25.11.1992.

3. Tenancy agreement dt. 20.11.92 in respect of premises No. 19, New Colony.

4. Rent Receipt dt. 25.11.1992.

5. Site Plan of property No. 18-A, New Colony, Delhi-5.

6. Site Plan of Property No. 19, New Colony, Delhi-5.

7. Telephone bills in respect of Ph. No. 524359/7528359 installed at 19 New Colony, Delhi in the name of the plaintiff from 1.4.87, 1.4.88, 1.12.88, 1.2.1989.

8. Electricity Bill in respect of property No. 18-A New Colony, Delhi-5, in the name of the plaintiff - 7.8.74, 4.12.74, 8.2.79, 8.2.79, 15.10.88, 15.10.88, 25.10.83, 25.10.83, 30.12.82, 21.7.92, 21.7.92.

9. Passport in the name of plaintiff dt. 29.7.1983 showing address as 18-A.

10. Old Ration Card.

11. New Ration Card.

12. Refrigeration receipt No. 68576 dt. 26.4.80 from Hindustan Traders.

13. Letter from DCP dt. 29.10.80.

14. Letter from DCP Licence dt. 13.2.81."

One year after the filing of the written statement by defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff filed another set of documents on 31.7.94. The documents are as follows:-

"1. True copy of the letter dt 18.12.1992.

2. True copy of the acknowledgement slip issued by the Sales Tax Deptt.

3. True copy of the letter dt. 15.3.1993.

4. True copy of the acknowledgement slip issued by the Sales Tax Deptt.

5. Copy of the sale deed dt. 12.4.1967.

6. True copy of the letter dt. 10.3.1993 from Raja Steel Traders to the plaintiff.

7. Copy of the Central Sales Tax registration form of M/s Raja Steel Traders.

8. Copy of the registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax registration rules of M/s Raja Steel."

On 14.8.1993 defendants 1 and 2 filed the following documents :-

"1. Rental Agreement dated 27.5.1988 in respect of premises at 12, Lotus Ramaswany Street, Rayapuram, Madras-13.

2. Rental Agreement dated 27.5.1988 in respect of premises at Door No. 4, Kamrajar Park Street, Rayapuram, Madras-13.

3. Rental Agreement dated 27.5.1988 in respect of premises at S.Nos. 142/2B, 216/1B, IB in Patta Nos. 259, 416, Ennore Express high road, Thiruvo Hiyur, Madras-19.

4. Letter from Sh. Brij Bhushan dated 25.5.1993 to Sales Tax Officer Ward No. 6, New Delhi.

5. Letter from Smt. Pushpawanti dated 25.5.1993 to Sales Tax Officer Ward No. 6, New Delhi.

6. Letter dated 7.6.1993 from Sh. Brij Bhushan, to the Sales Tax Officer,ward No. 6, New Delhi.

7. Copy of the application u/s 97 of the Cr.P.C. filed by defendant No. I dated 6.7.1993.

8. Copy of the orders passed in the above application and statement recorded of Smt. Pushpawanti by the Ld. from 6.7.93 to 12.7.1993.

9. Copy of Public Notice in Newspaper Punjab Kesari dated 30.5.1993 on behalf of Usha Rani.

10. Copy of Public Notice in Punjab Kesari dated 30.5.1993 on behalf of Pushpawanti."

On 12.8.1994 the defendants 1 & 2 filed documents and they are as follows :-

. Letter of M/S Raja Steel Traders, (B) with noting and date as : 67/13.4.1993 by Sh. I.D. Panday, regarding visit to promises.

2. Statement of Sh. Om Prakash dated 8.4.93.

3. Deed of Partnership dated 6.4.1989.

4. Statement of Sh. Om Prakash dated 4.4.1990.

5. Letter to Sale Tax Officer by M/s Raja Steel Traders & received by S.T.O. on 24.4.1990.

6. Application by Usha dated 11.10.1988.

7. Rent Receipt dated 13.9.1988.

8. Authorisation to make purchases on behalf of Raja Steel Traders (Validity w.e.f. 19.4.1988).

9. Amendment in R.C. No. LC/06/127937 /0488 dated 18.12.1992.

10. Letter dated 28.10.1992 by Sh.Om Prakash.

11. Letter by Usha dated nil.

12. Letter by Usha dated 30.5.1988.

13. Rent Receipt.

14. Partnership Deed executed by Usha Veena Makkar and Veena Rani.

15. Report of Inspector dated 3.5.1988.

16. Rent Receipt dated 1.4.1988.

17. Site Plan.

18. Form A.

19. Delhi Sales Tax Form stating that place of business is T-515, Chamelian Road.

20. Partnership Deed dated 16.4.1988.

21. Rent Deed dated 19.5.1988 of 18, New Colony, Delhi-5.

22. Rent Deed dated 19.5.1988 of 19, New Colony, Delhi-5.

23. Copy of agreement dated 16.3.1993.

24. Copy of letter dated 27.7.1992.

25. Letter from Brij Bhushan dated 25.5.1993, to Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi.

26. Letter from Smt. Pushpawanti dated 25.5.1993 to Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi.

27. Letter dated 7.6.1993 from Brij Bhushan to Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi.

28. Copy of the application U/s 97 Cr.P.C. filed by Brij Bhushan dated 6.7.1993.

29. Copy of orders passed in the above application and statement recorded of Smt. Pushpawanti by Ld. M.M. from 6.7.1993 to 12.7.1993.

30. Copy of public Notice in 'Punjab Kesari' dated 30.5.1993 on behalf of Usha Rani.

31. Copy of public Notice in 'Punjab Kesari' dated 30.5.1993 on behalf of Smt. Pushpawanti.

32. Copy of Will of Sh. Manohar Lal in Hindi dated 3.4.1972.

33. True translation in English of above will."

On 20.3.1995 defendants 1 & 2 filed the documents which are mentioned below :-

1. Copy of the Dainik Punjab Kesari, Delhi dated 23.6.1993.

2. Copy of plaint filed by the plaintiff in Suit No. 1037/93 pending in this Hon'ble Court.

3. Copy of letter dated 2.4.1994 by Manager, Dena Bank, Madras.

4. Copy of letter dated 16.9.1994 from Manager of Indian Bank, Madras.

5. Copy of Main Gate Vehicle Register of Tube Products of India dated 15.3.1993.

6. Copy of J.D. Tytler School Admission form of Bharat Bhushan Arora.

7. Bills/Cash Memos of Raja Steel Traders, dated 4.2.1993, 11.1.1993, 2.1.1993, 6.12.1992, 11.8.1992, 4.8.1992, and 30.7.1992."

6. On 10.10.1996 the application for injunction was dismissed by this Court. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The Division Bench by order dated 22.1.1997 allowed the appeal remitting the matter back for consideration by the trial court.

7. On 6.5.1997 the plaintiff filed list of documents which are as follows:-

"1. Letter dated 16.1.93 written by Brij Bhushan to Mrs. Usha Rani.

2. Copy of the ledger account of Raja Steel Traders.

3. Copy of the rent receipt dated 23rd March 1989

4. Proof of service."

8. The only point for consideration is whether the plaintiff has made out a, prima facie, strong case for the grant of injunction. The plaintiff has been very adamant in his stand that the father was the absolute owner of the premises No.18A though he had referred to the Will executed by the father. He had not filed a copy of the Will. A copy of the Will was filed by defendants 1 & 2. The Will refers to only 1/5th share of testator late Manohar Lal. Inspite of it, the plaintiff would state that father was the absolute owner of the property and the four sons had vested remained with reference to the property after the life interest of the mother Smt.Pushpa Wanti. It is quite inexplicable how could the plaintiff say something contrary to the document through which he claims title to the property. This only shows the attitude of the plaintiff and his casual approach for the rights of others, his own mother, brothers and the sister.

9. While claiming rights as tenant through the mother, he had not cared to make mother as a party to the suit. The mother was made a party later on, as I have noticed above. She had filed the written statement disputing the documents relied on by the plaintiff.

10. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff Mr. V.K. Makhija submitted that the documents filed by the plaintiff would conclusively show, prima facie, that the plaintiff had established his possession as tenant and defendants have absolutely no right to interfere.

11. Prima facie, when the mother has herself disputed the challenged documents, which are the foundation of the case of the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff proves the documents he cannot claim to be in possession as a tenant. Considering the pleadings of the parties, with reference to the various partnership business, I am not able to persuade myself to accept the contention on behalf of the plaintiff that by virtue of documents dated 20.11.1992 and the receipts relied upon by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has proved his case of tenancy. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant injunction. I.A. 4451/93 filed by the plaintiff for injunction stands dismissed and I.A.6678/93 filed by defendants 1 and 2 for vacation of stay is allowed.

S.No. 1004/93

Post the suit for further proceedings before the regular Bench on the 15th of October 1998.