Delhi High Court
Viney Kumar Mahajan vs Vishambhari Devi on 1 November, 2011
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision :01st November, 2011
+ RFA (OS) 76/2010
VINEY KUMAR MAHAJAN ....Appellant
Through: Mr.Mohd.Rais Ahmad Farooqui,
Advocate.
versus
VISHAMBHARI DEVI ...Respondent
Through: Mr.R.P.Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. Appellant has filed the present appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 21.05.2010 whereby the
suit filed by the respondent for possession against the
appellant was decreed without trial and the appellant
was directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over
the possession thereof to the respondent within three
months of the decree.
2. Claim of the respondent in the suit was that late Budh
Singh Rawat, husband of the appellant was working as
Peon/Care Taker since 1947 with the predecessor of the
respondent and he remained in service till 24.02.1989 (till
his death). During his employment, Budh Singh Rawat
was given the accommodation in question without
charging any amount either towards rent or other wise
and since the master servant relationship snapped due to
death of Budh Singh Rawat, his legal heirs were liable to
return possession of the premises in question. Appellant
took the defence that late Budh Singh Rawat was a tenant
under the predecessor in interest of the respondent and
that initially `75/- per month towards rent was being
deducted from the salary paid to her husband which were
increased to `100/- per month and thereafter to `125/-
per month.
3. Neither party filed any document to evidence the
respective plea. But, the respondent filed extracts from
the salary register containing signatures of various
persons who were employed by the predecessor in
interest of the respondent, which included late Budh
Singh Rawat, acknowledging receipt of salary each
month. The appellant was called upon to admit or deny
said documents and she admitted the signatures of her
late husband against entries pertaining to his name
wherein monthly salary being received by him was
acknowledged. These were exhibited as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-32.
It be highlighted that while admitting signatures of her
husband, appellant denied the contents of the
acknowledgement.
4. The learned Single Judged has opined that no triable issue
arises and has decreed the suit on the reasoning that the
appellant had not denied that her husband was an
employee under the predecessor in interest of the
respondent and that the registers Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-32
wherein signatures of husband of the appellant were
admitted against entries pertaining to monthly salary paid
evidenced his receiving fully salary and thus the plea that
each month rent was deducted when salary was paid was
disproved.
5. Grievance in the appeal is that the suit ought to have
been set down for trial.
6. Assertions of the appellant in the written statement
regarding taking the premises on rent are vague. The
appellant did not plead at all any specific date on which
her husband was inducted as a tenant in the premises in
question. The defence that monthly rent was deducted
when salary was paid to her husband has been destroyed
by the appellant when she admitted her signatures on
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-32 and the fact that while admitting the
signatures, she denied the contents of the documents is a
material for the reason under the evidence Act a
presumption arises that before it was executed the
document was properly drawn up.
7. The appellant had filed a petition u/s 45 of the Delhi Rent
Control Act. The said application u/s 45(3) Delhi Rent
Control Act was dismissed by the learned ARC vide order
dated 15.02.2007, observing that there was prima facie
nothing on record to show relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties. In appeal before the learned
RCT, only temporary connection was ordered to given to
the appellant with the observation that if the trial court
came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties, the electricity
connection would be disconnected by NDMC.
8. Even before us the appellant has not shown any
document worth the name to establish relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties at any time. The
premises occupied by the husband of the appellant being
employed as Peon/Care Taker did not confer any status of
tenant upon the appellant. The appellant has no legal
right to occupy the premises in question simply because
at one stage her husband was permitted to occupy the
premises in question because his employment with the
management of Regal Theatre.
9. The plea that the status of the respondent is that of a
licensee, has rightly been negative by the learned Single
Judge on the ground of estopple for the reason the
appellant's own case is that her husband was a tenant
under the predecessor in interest of the respondent and
thus she could not deny the title of the respondent.
10. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4912-4913 of
2011 in the case titled as Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors
Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors. has observed as under :
" According to the learned Amicus Curiae, every
lease on its expiry, or a license on its revocation
cannot be converted itself into litigation.
Unfortunately, our courts are flooded with these
cases because there is an inherent profit for the
wrong- doers in our system. It is a matter of
common knowledge that domestic servants,
gardeners, watchmen, caretakers or security men
employed in a premises, whose status is that of a
licensee indiscriminately file suits for injunction
not to be dispossessed by making all kinds of
averments and may be even filing a forged
document, and then demands a chunk of money
for withdrawing the suit. It is happening because
it is the general impression that even if ultimately
unauthorized person is thrown out of the
premises the court would not ordinarily punish
the unauthorized person by awarding realistic
and actual mesne profits, imposing costs or
ordering prosecution.
39. It is a matter of common knowledge that
lakhs of flats and houses are kept locked for
years, particularly in big cities and metropolitan
cities, because owners are not certain that even
after expiry of lease or licence period, the house,
flat or the apartment would be vacated or not. It
takes decades for final determination of the
controversy and wrongdoers are never
adequately punished. Pragmatic approach of the
courts would partly solve the housing problem of
this country."
11. We find no substance in the appeal preferred by the
appellant and the same is dismissed but without any cost.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
November 01st, 2011
tr
