Delhi High Court
Shri Umrao Singh vs M/S Ruchsun Engineering (P) Ltd. & ... on 7 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.179/2001
% 7th February, 2011
SHRI UMRAO SINGH ...... Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
M/S RUCHSUN ENGINEERING (P) LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents
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
this case is effective item no.7 on the Regular Board. It is 12.30 p.m.,
however, no one appears for the parties. I have therefore perused the
record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under section 96 Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated
17.01.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of
arrears of rent, possession and mesne profits was dismissed.
3. The facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff claimed to be owner of the
premises B-2/67, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, the ground floor of which
RFA No.179/2001 Page 1 of 4
was said to be leased out to the respondent vide lease deed dated
10.4.1995 w.e.f. 5.9.1994. The appellant has claimed that the respondent
issued cheques for rent which were dishonored and therefore, a notice
dated 16.4.1996 was served terminating the tenancy, and since the
respondent failed to vacate, the subject suit came to be filed.
4. The respondent appeared and contested the suit. It was contended that
the Lease Deed was a forged and fabricated document and that there did
not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It
was stated that premises were taken on lease by Sh. Sunil Sharma, a
Director of the respondent company, in his individual capacity and
therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It was also contended that the
cheques which were dishonored, were not issued by the respondent
company, but were issued by Sh. Sunil Sharma from his personal account.
5. After the pleadings were completed, the trial court framed the following
issues :
" 1. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the
purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
2. Whether the premises in dispute was let out to the defendant
for residential use and his director as mentioned in the plaint
and defendant has ever issued cheques towards rent as claimed
by the plaintiff? OPP
3. Whether Sh. Sunil Kumar is a tenant in respect of suit
property as claimed by the defendant? OPD
4. Whether the tenancy of the defendant was
terminated/determined n accordance with the law as mentioned
in the plaint? OPP
RFA No.179/2001 Page 2 of 4
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the
premises in dispute? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages? If so, at what
rate, for what period and to what amount? OPP
7. Relief."
6. The relevant issues are issues no.2 and 3. While dealing with these issues,
the trial court has noted that the lease deed is signed only by Sh. Sunil
Sharma and which does not bear the stamp and seal of the respondent
company. It is also noted in the impugned judgment that the cheques
which were issued, Ex.P7 to P9, were issued from the personal account of
Sh. Sunil Sharma and not from the account of the defendant company. It is
further noted that in spite of an objection in the written statement by the
respondent that it was Sh. Sunil Sharma who was the tenant, no effort was
made by the appellant to implead Sh. Sunil Sharma. Accordingly, the trial
court, and in my opinion rightly, has held that there was no relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties and the relationship of landlord
and tenant was between the appellant and Mr. Sunil Sharma. The trial
court has also held that the legal notice terminating the tenancy was
served on an address which was never the address of the respondent
company and hence it was held that the said notice was not duly served.
7. The trial court in addition to the aforesaid findings on merits has also held
that the appellant had not valued the suit appropriately and has not paid
proper court fees because so far as relief of possession was concerned no
court fee was paid. The appellant also did not pay the court fee on his
RFA No.179/2001 Page 3 of 4
claim of damages of Rs.25,330/-. The trial court, has therefore rightly,
required the plaintiff/appellant to pay an amount of Rs.8,837.60 towards
court fee.
8. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and
decree. This court is not entitled to interfere with the findings and
conclusions of the trial court merely because two views are possible. This
Court interferes only if the view taken by the trial court is perverse and
which causes injustice. The appellant did not implead Sh. Sunil Sharma as
a party to the case in spite of an objection having been taken in the
written statement that it was Mr. Sunil Sharma who really was the tenant
and who had issued the cheques of rent and also had signed the lease
deed without any authorization and without any stamp or seal of the
respondent company.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal which is,
therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Interim
orders are vacated. Trial court record be sent back.
February 07, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
vld
