Delhi High Court
Abdul Rehman & Anr. vs Mohd. Ashqeen & Ors on 5 April, 2018
$~5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 5th April, 2018
+ CM (M) 656/2016
ABDUL REHMAN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Ruhini
Dey & Mr. Dikshant Khanna,
Advs.
versus
MOHD. ASHQEEN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Deepak Vashishta, Mr. S.P.
Yadav & Mr. Mahesh Saroj,
Advs. for R-1 to 4 with R-1 and
2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners had instituted a case (E-241/2014) for eviction
under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the
sixth respondent on 21.10.2014 in respect of property described as
2561, Baradari Sher Afgan, Ballimaran, Delhi -110006 as specifically
shown in the site plan (page 41 of the paper book) attached to the said
petition. The eviction case resulted in judgment dated 30.03.2015
being passed by the Additional Rent Controller taking note of the fact
that the sixth respondent had failed to come with the application for
leave to contest within the statutory period after his service by special
summons under Section 25 B on 19.12.2014 and consequently an
order of eviction being granted in favour of the petitioners.
2. The first to fifth respondents submitted an objection petition
before the Additional Rent Controller on 02.11.2015 primarily
contending that they are owners in possession of the subject property
and that the eviction order had been suffered by the sixth respondent
(judgment debtor) in collusion with the petitioners (the decree holder).
3. It may be mentioned at this stage itself that the first to fifth
respondents (the objectors) are also the successors-in-interest of
Mohd. Yahya, they being related to judgment debtor, who is son of
late Mohd. Yahya who concededly was the tenant initially inducted in
the subject premises by the erstwhile owner.
4. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the objection petition
by her detailed order dated 10.11.2015 and thereafter proceeded to
issue warrant of possession against the judgment debtor and in favour
of the decree holder. The dismissal of the objections was challenged
before the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal (RCT 114/2015) which
was allowed by judgment dated 26.02.2016. In terms of the said order
the objection petition stood remanded to the Additional Rent
Controller for fresh decision after opportunity is granted to the parties
to prove their respective case.
5. The petition at hand challenges the aforesaid decision of the
Rent Control Tribunal, the prime contention urged being that the claim
of the objectors as to the right, title and interest in the property is not
founded on any credible material.
6. Having heard both sides at length and having gone through the
record with the assistance of the counsel for the parties, this Court
finds merit in the grievance of the petitioners. The learned Additional
Rent Controller had taken a correct and appropriate view by her order
dated 10.11.2015 recording there being no substance in the claim of
the objectors to the ownership of the subject property.
7. The fact that Mohd. Yahya under whom the objectors and
judgment debtor claim was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile
owner is not in dispute. The decree holders had brought the case for
eviction against the judgment debtor, inter alia, on the strength of
their title to the subject property acquired through Sale Deed dated
19.05.2003 for consideration, it being duly registered. There are
documents reflecting that after purchase of the property, for
consideration, by registered sale deed, at their instance, the municipal
corporation has also mutated it in their name, they not only paying the
property taxes in its respect but also having several documents
confirming their connection thereto.
8. It does appear that the objectors also have in their possession
certain documents indicating their possession of the property for
certain period. But then, it is an admitted case that they are
successors-in-interest of Mohd. Yahya, who was inducted as tenant in
this property long back (in or around 1963). The claim to ownership
of the objectors is based on a document purported to have been
executed on 04.07.1989 on stamp paper of Rs.10, and a copy of the
said document (running into two sheets), recorded in Urdu, has been
submitted (Annexure 7), its English translation also having been filed
(pages 88-89 of the paper book). A bare perusal of the said document
would indicate that one Abdul Yakoom, son of Shri Abdul Karim
Sahib, had purportedly agreed to sell a house with land admeasuring
about 45 square yards and roof with tin-shed built thereupon, it
bearing municipal number 2561, Gali Haji Quamuddin, Baradari, Sher
Afgan Khan Bazar, Balimaran, Delhi -110006 for total consideration
of Rs.40,000/- to Mohd. Yamin, son of late Mohd. Sultan, the
intended purchaser having paid to him Rs.10,000/- as earnest money,
it having been agreed that the sale deed would be executed within a
period of ninety days, and in the case the vendee failed to get the sale
deed prepared within such period, the earnest money would stand
forfeited. The document is styled as "Receipt Sale Deed".
9. The learned Additional Rent Controller found the above
document ex-facie not credible so as to accept the request of the
objectors to put their petition on trial. This court agrees with the said
conclusion for the simple reason the document in question does not
even purport to transfer any right, title and interest in the property in
favour of Mohd. Yahya, the name of the intended vendee reflected
therein being Mohd. Yamin, son of Mohd. Sultan. Even otherwise,
the document is only a receipt of payment of Rs.10,000/- by the
person claiming to be the owner of the property it, at the most,
amounting to an agreement to sell. It was conceded at the bar that no
sale deed was ever executed in the wake of such document, leave
alone any sale deed which had been registered. Further, it is admitted
that no payment of the balance amount of money shown as
consideration in the said document was either tendered or paid at any
stage. In these circumstances, even if the objectors are able to prove
the execution of the said document dated 04.07.1989, it would not
prove that Mohd. Yahya under whom they claim, had acquired any
right, title and interest in the subject property.
10. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no good
reason why the objection petition pressed under Section 25 of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 should be put to a full dressed inquiry.
Neither the document on the basis of which the claim in the objection
petition is founded itself is admissible nor can it have the effect of
conferring any title. No purpose would be served by going through the
exercise of recording evidence on such material. The objection
petition appears to be nothing but a device to delay the execution and
does not deserve to be entertained [K.L. Diwan vs. Mohan Malhotra
2009 (158) DLT 442].
11. The petition is, thus, allowed. The order dated 26.02.2016 of
the Rent Control Tribunal is set aside. The order dated 30.03.2015 of
the Additional Rent Controller is restored. The objection petition of
the first to fifth respondents stands dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-
and the stay against enforcement of the decree is vacated.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 05, 2018
nk
