Sunil Gupta @ Sunil Jindal vs Chand Rani Verma
2014 Latest Caselaw 6339 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Order delivered on: 1st December, 2014

+              CS(OS) No.762/2014, I.A. No.4850/2014 &
               C.C. No.55/2014

       SUNIL GUPTA @ SUNIL JINDAL                  ..... Plaintiff
                    Through Mr.S.K.Gandhi, Adv. along with
                              plaintiff in person.

                         versus

       CHAND RANI VERMA                                 ..... Defendant
                    Through          Mr.Rajendra Dutt, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff has admitted in the plaint that he is the tenant and is residing along with his family members in the suit property, i.e. House No.4/8, Second Floor, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. The tenancy was created vide Rent Agreement dated 24th January, 2013 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant at the monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- excluding electricity and water charges which the plaintiff has been regularly paying against rent receipts. The plaintiff has also deposited security deposit of Rs.30,000/- with the defendant which was returnable without interest.

2. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant started harassing the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the local police on 17th June, 2013. However, on 20th June, 2013, the defendant approached the plaintiff to settle the matter and stated that the defendant was in need of money in order to clear the loan from HDFC Bank and she gave the proposal to the plaintiff to purchase the entire second floor of the said premises, measuring 125 sq. yards out of total 200 sq. yards, for a total sale consideration of Rs.40 lacs. The plaintiff accepted the offer and paid a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- in cash to the defendant. It was also agreed by way of an oral agreement arrived at between the parties that the security deposit of Rs.30,000/- would be adjusted towards the sale consideration and the remaining amount was to be paid by 20th September, 2013. However, later on, the defendant failed to perform her part of the said oral agreement. Thus, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 21st August, 2013 and called upon the defendant to complete the transaction.

3. Per contra, the case of the defendant is that the suit is totally false and frivolous and there is no cause of action to file the same against the defendant. The plaintiff is merely a tenant who was inducted so by virtue of Lease Agreement dated 24th January, 2013 duly registered as document No.634, Book No.1, Vol. No.4734. The plaintiff at the time of execution of the lease deed paid the security amount to the defendant and further one month rent was paid in February, 2013. The defendant is a widow and dependent upon the

rent income to run the family expenses. The plaintiff was not paying the rent regularly. The defendant had no option but to initiate the proceedings against the plaintiff. The suit for possession against the plaintiff is pending. The plaintiff is merely harassing the defendant and in order to further harass, the present false and frivolous suit has been filed. The defendant has denied any oral agreement arrived between the parties. It is alleged in the written statement that her husband had saved Rs.6,00,000/-for the marriage of the daughter. The plaintiff then told the defendant that in Rs.6,00,000/- the defendant will not be able to get a match in good family as it will require handsome amount for said purpose. The plaintiff suggested that he is having factory and machines in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, but he is not having funds to start the same. In case, the said amount is given to him he will start his business and will make the payment of increased amount to her with which she will be able to have a good match for her daughter in a good family and will meet the expenditure of marriage. The defendant was lead to the above belief and on the inducement of the plaintiff, believing that he was sincere in his offer made the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- to him on 17th March, 2013. After sometime in May, 2013 the defendant got proposal for her daughter and the parents of the boy visited the house of the defendant to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The defendant then demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to enable her to engage the boy but the plaintiff postponed the payment on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff kept on making false promises. Lastly on 17th June, 2013 he had promised to make the payment at

3.30 p.m. which he again postponed to 8.00.p.m and then at 9.00.p.m. and finally refused to make the payment. The defendant requested the plaintiff to give at least in writing the receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- received by him but he refused. The defendant was thus deceived by the plaintiff by dishonestly inducing her to make the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- and as such the plaintiff cheated the defendant in the above manner. The defendant made complaints against the plaintiff to the police on 16th July, 2013 and 17th July, 2013 regarding aforesaid act of cheating with the SHO Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi. The police started conducting enquiry on the complaints of the defendant. The plaintiff to avoid the enquiry from the police filed a civil suit bearing CS(OS) No.106/2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, against the defendant as well as the SHO Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, by concocting a false story. It is also alleged that she has learnt from family of the plaintiff as well as other persons that the plaintiff is habitual in indulging in such type of activities and various cases/FIRs stand registered against him. The defendant did not give the details of the above cases as she did not want to involve herself into unnecessary litigation. Although the defendant was given details of some of the cases by the relations of the plaintiff. The defendant denied the allegations of the plaintiff contained in plaint about the concocted story of the sale of the property, by saying that she never had any talk with the plaintiff regarding sale of her property which is worth more than Rs.1.5 crores and the allegations made by the plaintiff are false to his knowledge. She stated that she is victim of fraud and has

been cheated of the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by the plaintiff for which she made complaint to the police. However, after going through the plaint in the above suit the defendant made a statement in the court that the allegations in the plaint are motivated and the suit has been filed with oblique motive and there is no iota of truth in the same. The defendant made a statement that she never threatened the plaintiff to dispossess him without due process of law. On the statement of the defendant and after hearing the parties the aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff was disposed of. The plaintiff in furtherance of his pre- planned malafide intention to live in the property of the defendant without making payment of rent due concocted the above story and there is no iota of truth in the same. The plaintiff did not make the payment of rent for the period of 6 months and in terms of the aforesaid lease the same stood terminated and he was called upon by registered notice dated 17th September, 2013 to make the payment of the rent and to vacate and surrender the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to defendant otherwise, the defendant will be compelled to take legal action for recovery of the possession as well as the amount due. The plaintiff failed to comply with the aforesaid notice, therefore, the defendant filed suit for Possession and Recovery being CS No.6/14 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and the same was fixed for 29th May, 2014.

4. Mr.Rajender Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, has argued that the suit is totally false and frivolous and is not maintainable. His client is a widow. The plaintiff is harassing her

in frivolous litigation. No oral agreement of any nature was arrived at between the parties. He is simply a tenant who is not paying the rent regularly.

5. It is settled position in law that if by means of clever drafting a camouflage has been created in order to create an illusion of a cause of action, such cases should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself i.e. even before admitting the suit and issuing summons or any time thereafter. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 (para 5); and The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 (paras 10, 12 & 13); and Ajay Goel Vs. K.K.Bhandari, 1999 (48) DRJ 292 (paras 2, 5-8, 15) are relevant in this regard. Therefore, this Court can suo-moto exercise its powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without there being a formal application for the said purpose.

6. There is not even a single document placed by the plaintiff on record in order to indicate any hint that the defendant even intended to sell the suit property. Even in reply submission, the plaintiff's counsel was totally vague in his submission.

7. In the written statement, the defendant has specifically alleged that the plaintiff is involved in many civil and criminal cases. The particulars of the same are given as under:-

(a) F.I.R. No.383/12, U/S 420/468/120-B IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.

(b) Civil Suit in CS(OS) No.168/2012 re: "Gulshan Verma & Ors Vs. Sunita & Anr." decreed on 8th May, 2012 by this Court.

(c) F.I.R. No.300/2010 P.S. Bharat Nagar, North-West, U/S 279/337/420/468/471 IPC.

(d) F.I.R. No.578/03 P.S. Rohini South Distt. North-West U/S 448/380 I.P.C.

(e) Criminal Complaint U/S 138 of N.l. Act being C.C.

No.383/1/2002 "Sanjeev Bansal Vs. Sunil Kumar Jindal"

(f) Suit No.155/2002 "Smt. Archana Kumari Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta".

(g) Case C.S./488/2005 "Sunil Jindal Vs. Mamta Gupta in the court of Rakesh Kumar-I, CCJ-cum-ARC, Delhi in respect of Second Floor owned by Mrs. Mamta Gupta.

(h) DA No.83 of 2009 "Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. Subash Mittal & Ors" before DRT Ill.

(i) C.M.(M) 888/2009 "Mamta Gupta Vs. Sunil Jindal" decided on 28th February, 2010.

(j) CS(OS) 154/2002 "Poonam Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta"

before C.J., Tis Hazari.

(k) Case by Kunti Lal Jain, S/o D.R. Jain, R/o 120, Hariant Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110020.

(l) Citi Bank Loan A/C A & R 1686172573.

(m) Loan from Bank of Baroda, Shakti Nagar Branch against property No.120, Ground Floor, Hariant Nagar, Delhi.

(n) Police Complaint dated 15th April, 2009 DD Entry No.52B, P.S. Roop Nagar, alleging forgery of Ration Card and misuse thereof.

(o) Recovery proceeding by lNG Vysya Bank.

(p) CS(OS) No.307/11 "Sunil Jindal Vs. Smt. Asha Bansal"

filed in this Court.

8. Counsel for the defendant has merely stated that it was an oral agreement, some amount was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff in cash. He admits that the plaintiff is a tenant. He submits that the rent is not being paid regularly as the plaintiff is now claiming as owner of the property by virtue of oral agreement. He admits that the defendant's suit for possession is pending against the plaintiff. In nutshell, clear date, time, source of alleged amount which is allegedly paid in cash are not mentioned.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is not able to explain that when the tenanted premises was let out to the plaintiff by virtue of lease deed by the defendant and why she would sell the property by virtue of oral agreement. The plaintiff is a habitual litigant as various cases are pending against him. He has not produced the receipt of advance amount which is allegedly paid to the defendant. The circumstances in the present case are missing which would show that the plaintiff could have entered into an oral agreement with the defendant. The plaintiff is simply a tenant. From the entire gamut of the matter that the suit is totally false and frivolous, it has been filed in order to harass the defendant. The question of relief of specific performance,

thus, does not arise in the absence of any evidence. No trial is necessary in the matter in view of facts and circumstances in the present case as the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his case.

10. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE DECEMBER 01, 2014