Delhi High Court
Smt. Shanti Devi vs Sh.Mange Ram Gupta on 2 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.123/2001
% 2nd February, 2011
SMT. SHANTI DEVI ...... Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
SH.MANGE RAM GUPTA ...... Respondent
Through: None
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. This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011
and today it is effective item no.8 on the Regular Board. It is 3:30 pm. No
one appears for the parties. I have therefore gone through the record and
am proceeding to dispose of the matter.
2. 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 9.2.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for
RFA No.123/2001 Page 1 of 3
recovery of Rs.1,05,000/- was dismissed. The recovery claimed was towards
arrears of rent, water and electricity charges.
3. The Trial Court has held that there was no proof that the rent
was increased from Rs.120/- to Rs.2,000/- The Trial Court has further held
that the property in question was already transferred and the arrears are
claimed from 1991 to 10.4.1996, when the property was sold. The Trial
Court has rightly observed that there was no reason for the
appellant/plaintiff to remain silent from 1991 till 1996 for sending of the
notice claiming arrears of rent if really the rent was in arrears. The Trial
Court has further rightly recorded that there was no proof on record as to
what is the rate of rent. Though, the observations of the Trial Court with
regard to entitlement to recover rent being of the new owner, may not be
called for in the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the
conclusion of the Trial Court is otherwise correct that the appellant/plaintiff
has failed to discharge her onus to prove that the arrears of rent were due to
her, more so because the respondent proved on record sending of two
money orders (exhibited as Ex.DW1/P1to Ex.DW1/P4 which are money order
receipts and the postal receipts) totaling Rs.3,000/- and which were duly
received by a family member of the appellant/plaintiff. The money orders
were sent on 10.1.96 and in the notice dated 26.2.96, Ex.P2, there is no
mention of the money orders for claiming of the amount payable towards the
arrears of rent and other charges from the defendant.
RFA No.123/2001 Page 2 of 3
4. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned
judgment and decree which calls for interference by this Court in appeal.
Merely because two views are possible, this Court is not entitled to interfere
unless the view taken by the Trial Court is perverse. There is no perversity in
the impugned judgment and decree. The appeal is therefore without merits
and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The
Trial Court Record be sent back.
February 02, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
