Delhi High Court
Mrs. Ruby Singh vs Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills ... on 24 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 455/2001
% 24th February, 2011
MRS. RUBY SINGH ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.S. Mishra and Mr. Padhi, Adv.
VERSUS
RAJA BAHADUR MOTILAL POONA MILLS LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this regular first appeal under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned judgment and decree
dated 11.7.2001 whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed
against the appellant/defendant by holding that the appellant/defendant was
not the owner of the suit premises being Flat No.25, 7th Floor, Dakshineshwar
Apartment, Hailey Road, New Delhi-1 along with the appurtenants. It has
been held that the appellant/defendant was not the owner of the subject
premises as there is no sale deed executed in terms of Section 54 of the
RFA-455/2001 Page 1 of 3
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in favour of the appellant by the erstwhile
owner.
2. During the course of hearing, I brought to the notice of counsel for the
parties the decision in the case of Asha M. Jain Vs. Canara Bank 2001
(94) DLT 841, a Division Bench judgment of this court, which recognized
that in Delhi, transfer of property does take place through the usual
documentation of an agreement to sell, power of attorney, Will etc. and
which documentation transfers right, title and interest in the property. In the
present suit, a declaration was claimed by the respondent/plaintiff that the
appellant was not the owner of the suit premises, though, the only locus
standi of the respondent/plaintiff/tenant would have been to, at the very
best, deny the claim of the appellant/defendant for claim of rent. In fact,
even this defence is doubtful inasmuch as under Section 50 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882, rent which is bonafidely paid to a holder under
defective title entitles the person who has actually paid the rent to defend a
claim of any other person for rent with respect to the premises.
3. Counsel for the parties have therefore, agreed that the impugned
judgment and decree be set aside and the suit be dismissed. It is agreed
that the appellant is the owner/landlord of the subject premises.
Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff however claims that the
respondent was illegally evicted from the premises by means of an ex parte
decree, and therefore, the appellant is guilty of an illegal act. Learned
counsel for the appellant very vehemently denies this fact and states that in
RFA-455/2001 Page 2 of 3
fact the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed and
revision against the said judgment is already pending in this court as CR No.
110/2005 and CR No.158/2005.
4. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment
and decree is set aside and the suit would stand dismissed. Decree sheet be
prepared. However, the issue with regard to whether the respondent has
been legally or illegally evicted from the subject premises is not being
pronounced upon by this court and it will be pronounced upon by the court
hearing the aforesaid Civil Revision Nos. 110/2005 and 158/2005. Interim
orders passed in this case will stand merged in terms of the today's
judgment. Trial court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 24, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
