Delhi High Court
Ashwani Kumar Bajaj & Anr. vs Kaushal Pahuja on 19 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 19, 2014
+ RSA 253/2014 & CM No. 15679/2014
ASHWANI KUMAR BAJAJ & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Ramashankar, Ms.Sobha Gupta
& Mr.Shivom Garg, Advocates
versus
KAUSHAL PAHUJA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
for Mr.Kaushal Pahuja, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Respondent-plaintiff's suit for possession, recovery of damages
and mesne profits stands decreed by the trial court on an application
under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, as landlord and tenant relationship
between the parties is not disputed. Vide common impugned order, trial
court has also dismissed appellant-defendant's application under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC whereby bar of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control
Act was raised.
The First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment of 22nd
August, 2014 has affirmed trial court's judgment while noting that the
suit property falls in Khasra No. 85/1 of Village Hastsal, Delhi, which
RSA No.253/2014 Page 1
does not come under the purview of The Delhi Rent Control Act. The
factual background of this case already stands noted by the trial court in
the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration.
At the hearing, it was vehemently contended that the findings
returned by both the courts below are erroneous, as evidence was required
to be led to establish the Khasra number to bring out the suit property
from the purview of The Delhi Rent Control Act. It was pointed out by
learned counsel for appellant that Sale Deed of 14th September, 1981 in
favour of respondent conferring ownership of the suit property does not
bear the Khasra number and so, it cannot be connected to Khasra No.
85/1 in Village Hastsal, Delhi which is not notified under The Delhi Rent
Control Act and so, the bar of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control Act
would apply.
Learned counsel for respondent draws the attention of this Court to
the original Sale Deed of 25th June, 1956 which bears Khasra No. 85/1
and thus, it is submitted that in view of Section 116 of the Evidence Act,
the title of respondent-plaintiff cannot be challenged by appellant-
defendant as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is
not disputed.
Learned counsel for appellant-defendant had drawn the attention of
this Court to the following findings of the trial court:-
"These are the chain of documents through which
plaintiff is deriving title in respect of property bearing No. B-1
measuring area 200 sq. yards out of Kh. No. 85/1 situated in
revenue estate of village Hastshal, Delhi Area Abadi known as
Milap Nagar, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Documents dated
14.09.1981 also refers the said property as 200 sq. yards Plot
RSA No.253/2014 Page 2
No.1 Block-B Mauza (village) Milap Nagar, Hastshal,
Najafgarh. The aforesaid sale deed dated 25.06.1956 shows
that property falls in Kh. No. 81/1. It is a common knowledge
that with passage of time, if in a revenue state of village, abadi
develops and houses are constructed, khasra number gets
insignificant and property comes to be known by Plot No. etc.
Suit property is still Plot No. B-1, Milap Nagar, Main
Najafgarh Road and the tenant premises i.e shop bearing
private No. 2, ground floor is in the said plot B-1 therefore it
falls under Kh. No. 85/1 which is clearly not notified for the
purposes of DRC Act as discussed above."
It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant-defendant that the
aforesaid findings have been reached as if the evidence has been led but
on an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC of respondent, the suit has
been decreed against appellant, which is unwarranted and therefore,
judgments of the courts below deserve to be set aside.
To support the findings of the courts below, learned counsel for
respondent-plaintiff had drawn the attention of this Court to the Sale
Deed of 25th June, 1956 of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent to
point out that in the aforesaid Sale Deed, there is a mention of Khasra
No. 85/1 and the Sale Deed in question is in respect of the part of the
land, which is subject matter of the aforesaid Sale Deed of 25 th June,
1956 and due to the village in question being declared as an urban village,
there is no requirement of mentioning the Khasra number in the Sale
Deeds and when the landlord and tenant relationship is not disputed
between the parties, then the title of respondent-plaintiff cannot be
challenged by appellant-defendant, who is a tenant in the suit property.
RSA No.253/2014 Page 3
To contend so, reliance is placed upon decision in Sky Land International
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P. Lalwani 191 (2012) DLT 594.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the impugned
judgments, evidence on record and the decision cited, I find that during
the course of hearing, it was not disputed that the village in question is an
urbanized village and thus, absence of Khasra number in the Sale Deed in
question is of no consequence, particularly when it stands established
from the original Sale Deed of 25th June, 1956 that the Sale Deed in
respect of the suit property is out of Khasra No. 85/1, which admittedly
does not come within the purview of The Delhi Rent Control Act and
thus, the bar of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply.
As there is implied admission by appellant-defendant that the
predecessor-in-interest of respondent-plaintiff was co-owner of a large
tract and the suit property was part of it, then every co-owner is presumed
to be owner of every inch of land when the land is held common.
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no perversity in the
findings returned by both the courts below. Infact, no substantial question
of law arises in this second appeal.
Consequently, this appeal and application are dismissed while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 19, 2014
r
RSA No.253/2014 Page 4
