Manoj Chaudhary vs Sanjeev Bhardwaj
2014 Latest Caselaw 5818 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of Decision: November 14, 2014

+     RSA 339/2014
      MANOJ CHAUDHARY                                    ..... Appellant
                  Through:              Mr. Harish K. Mehra, Advocate

                         versus

      SANJEEV BHARDWAJ                                    ..... Respondent
                  Through:              Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

C.M. No.18610-11/2014 (for exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.

C.M. No.18612/2014 (for delay)

For reasons stated in the application, delay of 55 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

Application is disposed of.

RSA No. 339/2014 & C.M.No. 18609/2014

Respondent's suit for possession of the suit premises stands decreed by both the courts below.

The factual narration of this case already finds mention in the

RSA No.339/2014 Page 1 opening paragraph of the impugned judgment and so, needs no reiteration.

At the hearing of the appeal, appellant-defendant had filed an application for additional evidence to show that the subject premises were located in village Sikdarpur which was notified under the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, the said application has been dismissed by the Appellate Court along with the appeal of appellant-defendant by observing that it had been filed at the stage of final arguments and that the title documents of neighboring properties are not reliable.

According to learned counsel for appellant, issue regarding the suit of respondent being barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was framed by the trial court and the findings returned by both the courts on this issue are erroneous, as the subject property does not fall within the area of village Ziauddinpur as the record of Gaon Sabha of the year 1981 reveals that it falls within the area of village Sikdarpur and so, the suit of respondent-plaintiff is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, trial court judgment and the material on record, I find that the controversy regarding the name of the village in question stands resolved from the Sale Deed (EX. PW-1/3) of the year 2007. In the aforesaid Sale Deed (Ex. PW-1/3), it is clearly mentioned that the name of the village Ziauddinpur, which is not notified under the Delhi Rent Control Act and so, bar of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply. In the face of aforesaid Sale Deed (EX. PW-1/3), the courts below have rightly not placed reliance upon the revenue record i.e. khasra girdawari of the year 1980-81. The

RSA No.339/2014 Page 2 concurrent findings returned by both the courts below do not suffer from any perversity. No substantial question of law is raised in this appeal.

In view of aforesaid, this appeal and application are dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                          JUDGE

NOVEMBER 14, 2014
r




RSA No.339/2014                                                       Page 3