Delhi High Court
Ravinder Singh vs Sohal Lal Saini on 2 May, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 131/2017 & CM Nos.16697-99/2017
% 2nd May, 2017
RAVINDER SINGH .... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.S.Goindi, Advocate.
versus
SOHAL LAL SAINI ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the
appellant/tenant/defendant impugning the concurrent judgments of the
courts below; of the Trial Court dated 30.7.2013 and the First
Appellate Court dated 24.1.2017; by which the courts below have
decreed the suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits filed
by the respondent/landlord/plaintiff.
2. The only issue which is called for decision is as to what
was the rent of the suit premises being the first floor of the property
bearing no. 62, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi - 14.
Respondent/landlord/plaintiff claimed that the rent of the suit premises
was Rs.3600/- per month whereas the appellant/tenant/defendant
contended that rent of the suit property was only Rs.2000/- per month
plus Rs.300/- towards electricity charges and another Rs.300/- towards
water charges.
3. Both the courts below have arrived at a finding of fact that
the appellant/defendant had signed two rent agreements executed
between the parties for the period of 11 months each. Both these rent
agreements were proved on record by the respondent/plaintiff through
the attesting witness to these lease agreements and who was an
attesting witness to both the lease agreements. The second lease
agreement containing the rate of rent at Rs.3600/- per month was
proved as Ex.PW1/A. Accordingly, relying on this rent agreement
which was proved to have been signed by the appellant/defendant, the
courts below have taken the rent at Rs.3600/- per month. Once the rent
is more than Rs.3500/-, accordingly, the premises does not have the
protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
4. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that
the appellant/defendant has demolished the testimony of the notary
public towards notarization of the rent agreement and who admitted
that the rent agreement is not shown as duly serialized in the register
maintained by him, and accordingly, appellant/defendant should be
proved to have raised a sufficient doubt as to the rent agreement
Ex.PW1/A.
(ii) In my opinion, it is in the realm of jurisdiction of the courts
below to arrive at a finding of fact, and once the finding of fact arrived
at is on the basis of evidence, and such finding of fact is one of the
possible and plausible view, then no substantial question of law arises
for this Court to interfere under Section 100 CPC. That the rent
agreement Ex. PW1/A is signed by the appellant/defendant is a finding
of fact proved as per the deposition of the attesting witness.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant also argued
that the lease agreement ought to have been registered, however,
admittedly the lease agreement is only for 11 months and it is only
when lease agreements are of 12 months or more then they have to be
registered by virtue of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 and Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. Accordingly,
the argument of the appellant/defendant is rejected that the rent
agreement could not have been looked into on account of non-
registration.
6. Dismissed.
MAY 02, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
