Smt. Saroj Kumari vs Sh. Ramesh Chand Verma
2014 Latest Caselaw 3069 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RC REV No. 246/2013

%                                                    11th July , 2014

SMT. SAROJ KUMARI                                         ......Revisionist
                          Through:       Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

SH. RAMESH CHAND VERMA                                      ...... Respondent
                 Through:                Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

1958 is filed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated

29.4.2013 by which the leave to defend application filed by the

petitioner/tenant has been dismissed.

2.           The only issue which is argued before this Court, and which

was also the main issue urged before the court below was that whether the

respondent is the owner/landlord of the suit premises.         The issue with

respect to whether the respondent herein, petitioner before the trial court,

was the owner/landlord arose inasmuch as respondent herein (landlord) had
RC REV No.246/2013                                                 Page 1 of 5
 purchased the suit property from the petitioner herein, respondent before the

trial court. The case of the respondent herein before the Additional Rent

Controller was that petitioner herein had executed the usual documents

being the agreement to sell, power of attorney, Will etc transferring rights in

the suit property in favour of the present respondent on 3.4.2001. These

documents including the general power of attorney which was duly

registered with the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi. The petitioner herein

admittedly handed over all the title documents of the suit property to the

respondent herein simultaneous to the execution of the documents. In the

general power of attorney which is registered in the office of the Sub

Registrar, signatures of the husband of the present petitioner are stated to

exist.


3.           I do not find any error in the conclusion of the trial court that

the petitioner herein had sold rights in the suit property to the respondent

herein by means of the documentation dated 3.4.2001. I may note that

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 alongwith the connected

provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 were

amended by Act 48 of the year 2001 which became applicable w.e.f

25.9.2001 only. The documents executed prior to this date did not require

RC REV No.246/2013                                                Page 2 of 5
 any stamping or registration in terms of the subsequently amended

provisions and the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.

(183) 2011 DLT 1 (SC). In fact, Supreme Court in the judgment in the case

of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) lays down the ratio and

protects the documents executed prior to 2001 by observing that the

agreement to sell in the nature of part performance will have the necessary

benefit in terms of provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882 and also that the power of attorney given for consideration would be

irrevocable in terms of Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872.


4.           In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner herein had

transferred rights in the suit property to the respondent herein and the

respondent herein was therefore in terms of the rent agreement of the same

date entitled to evict the petitioner herein. There is nothing unusual if the

petitioner herein was continued to allow to stay in the suit property even

after rights in the property were transferred inasmuch as the rights of the

respondent herein were protected in terms of the rent deed executed holding

the possession of the petitioner herein to be of the tenant.

5.           The defence of the present petitioner stated in the leave to

RC REV No.246/2013                                               Page 3 of 5
 defend    application   that    the   documents    were   got   executed   by

misrepresentation is a moonshine defence because not only the power of

attorney is registered, parties are not illiterate villagers who did not know

what they were doing. Also, the stand that the property was only mortgaged

to the respondent by the petitioner in terms of the documentation dated

3.4.2001 and that entire mortgage amount stood paid is ex facie baseless not

only because the proof of alleged property is not stated, but also if amount

was repaid the original title documents would not be with the respondent

herein.

6.           I may note that during the course of arguments, counsel for the

petitioner before this Court stated that petitioner has filed a suit for

cancellation of the documents dated 3.4.2001, however, admittedly that suit

for cancellation of the documents dated 3.4.2001 has been filed as late as in

the year 2012 and after the present eviction petition was instituted by the

respondent herein against the petitioner.         Clearly therefore once the

documents dated 3.4.2001 remained in force for over a decade, there is no

reason for the Court           to disbelieve the same.     Challenge to the

documentation dated 3.4.2001 in the year 2012 would be barred by Article

59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which requires that a suit to challenge

documents has to be filed in three years
RC REV No.246/2013                                               Page 4 of 5
 7.           In view of the above, there is no merit in this rent control

revision, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their

own costs.




JULY 11, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne