Delhi High Court
Richa Devi vs Ram Dass on 23 April, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 48/2014
% 23rd April, 2014
RICHA DEVI ......Appellant
Through: Mr. P.K.Nayyar, Advocate.
VERSUS
RAM DASS ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC impugning the
concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 3.7.2004
and the first appellate court dated 5.10.2013; by which, the suit of the
respondent-plaintiff for possession and mesne profits with respect to the
property bearing no. 183, Tilak Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi was
decreed.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the respondent-plaintiff was that
he was allotted this quarter being an industrial worker and at one stage since
Page 1 of 4
he ceased to be an industrial worker, the department informed him that the
allotment would be cancelled, and at which stage, the respondent-plaintiff
requested that the property be transferred to the name of Jeevan Lal, late
husband of the appellant-defendant. However, ultimately this quarter was
not allotted to Jeevan Lal and the respondent-plaintiff Sh. Ram Dass
continued to be the owner of the suit property.
3. The appellant-defendant pleaded that the suit property allotted
in the name of Jeevan Lal, her late husband, and which is clear from the
letter dated 7.12.1979 Ex.RW2/1, issued by the department. Accordingly,
the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. Both the courts below have held that the allotment in favour of
respondent-plaintiff was never cancelled and no allotment was ever granted
in favour of Jeevan Lal, late husband of the appellant. Courts below have
referred to the fact that the document Ex.RW2/1 dated 7.12.1979 is not
issued by the department and appropriate noting states that this fact has been
proved on record as Ex.RDW3/R-1. In fact the aspect that there could not
be allotment to Jeewan Lal, husband of the plaintiff was communicated to
Jeewan Lal vide letter dated 14.4.1981 which has been proved as Ex.
RDW3/R-2. Even the bank draft which was sent was also returned to the
Page 2 of 4
appellant-defendant vide letter of the department dated 18.3.1997,
Ex.RDW3/R4. Accordingly both the courts below have held that the
respondent-plaintiff continued to be the owner of the suit property and
therefore the suit for possession and mesne profits was decreed.
5. The first appellate court has summarized the complete position
in para-10 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:-
"10. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found
that the trial court has decreed the suit on the ground that it was Ram Dass in
whose favour the suit property was allotted and the appellant/defendant failed to
adduce any documents or evidence, that the allotment in favour of Ram Dass was
cancelled or that it was allotted in the name of Jiwan Lal. So many documents
were placed on record in this regard and ultimately the complete file of the
Labour Commissioner was kept on record to avoid any controversy with the
consent of both the parties. From the documents on the file it is revealed that
originally the suit property was allotted in the name of Ram Dass, there is no
dispute about that. It was allotted to him being an employee of Federal Lloyds
Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, a letter was sent to him which is on record that as he
seized to be an industrial worker, therefore, within six months from the date he
has seized to be industrial worker that is 14.12.73. he was required either to regain
his status as industrial worker or shall vacate the quarter. It was also mentioned in
the letter that if he fails to vacate he said quarter then he will be liable to be
evicted. There is nothing on record brought or available in the file of the Labour
Commissioner the any action in this regard was thereafter taken against Sh.Ram
Dass for getting the same vacated from Sh. Ram Dass or to cancel the allotment in
the name of Ram Dass. Jiwan Lal also applied for transfer of the suit property in
his name as Ram Dass ceased to be industrial worker. He alleges that one letter
was sent to him in this regard but there is a specific averments by the witness and
also the document to this effect and a nothing on the file, copy of which has been
porved as Ex.RDW3/R1 that this quarter was never allotted to Sh.Jiwan Lal and
the letter dt. 7.12.79 was never issued by the department to Sh. Jiwan Lal
mentioning that the suit property is allotted in his name. There are specific letters
written by the defendant to Sh.Jiwan Lal which were also received by him and
also by the defendant/appellant herein that suit property can not be allotted to Sh.
Jiwan Lal. Copy of the letter received by Jiwan Lal is Ex.RDW3/R3, wherein it
was communicated to him that the quarter no. TK 183 which is in the name of
Ram Dass can not be transferred in his name and the copy of letter which has
Page 3 of 4
been received by the appellant /defendant herein is Ex. RDW3/R2. Wherein it was
again mentioned that the quarter no. 183 TK which is in the name of his brother
(i.e. Ram Dass) now according to the rules can not be transferred in the name of
Jiwan Lal. In view of this entire evidence, it is clear that the quarter in dispute was
never allotted to Sh. Jiwan Lal as alleged, rather the rules prohibits transfer of the
quarter in the name of the brother as mentioned in RDW3/R2. There is no
evidence brought on record or is available on the file that this suit property was
ever allotted to Sh. Jiwan Lal or that Jiwan Lal or his family members were
having any right to possess the same. In view of the above discussions and the
documentary evidence on record and also the fact that the suit property was
allotted in the name of Ram Das which is not cancelled till date by the Labour
department and no action is initiated on the basis of said letter, I found myself
unable to differ with the opinion of the Ld.Trial Court. There is no merit in the
appeal. The same is dismissed. Trial court be sent back along with copy of Order.
File of Labour Department be also sent back. Appeal file be consigned to R/R."
(underlining added)
6. In view of the above, I do not find any error committed by the
courts below, and no question of law much less any substantial question of
law arises under Section 100 CPC, for this appeal to be entertained. The
appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
APRIL 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
