Delhi High Court
Rajan Bhandari & Anr vs Shriniwas Verma on 5 January, 2021
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 03rd November, 2020
Judgment delivered on: 05thJanuary, 2021
+ CM(M) No. 37/2020
RAJAN BHANDARI & ANR ... Petitioners
versus
SHRINIWAS VERMA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Petitioner in person
For the Respondent: Mr. Karan Babuta, Advocate with Respondent in person
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner impugns judgement dated 30.09.2019 whereby
decree of possession has been passed against the petitioner under
order 12 rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. Trial Court in the impugned
order has held that in the Written Statement there are categorical
admissionsparticularly in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Written
Statement.
2. Respondent has filed the subject Suit for Possession, Permanent
Injunction and Damages against the Petitioners contending that
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
respondent is the owner of built-up property bearing number 367 - A
- 368 village Pana Udyan, Narela, Delhi consisting of ground floor
and first floor.
3. It is contended in the plaint that the Petitioners approached the
Respondent in the month of July 2017 and requested for grant of short
period tenancy for two months. Since, the first floor of the property
was lying vacant and there was time of four - five months in the
shifting of the respondent's son to the said property, Respondent
agreed to give the portion of the suit property on the First Floor
consisting of a two rooms set on rent for a short period of two months
to the petitioner, with effect from August 2017 at the rate of Rs.
4,000/- per month excluding all charges.
4. It is contended that the petitioner shifted in the month of August
2017 on the first floor and started living therein. Respondent asked
petitioner No. 1 to execute the Rent Agreement but the same was
avoided by the petitioners and they assured that since they wanted the
premises only for two to three months Respondent shouldn't worry.
5. It is contended that petitioners only paid rent for two months
vide cheques both for the sum of Rs. 4,000/- each. Petitioners
thereafter neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent and other
charges for the rest of the months. A cheque was given in the month
of December 2017 for Rs 8,000/- but the same was dishonoured.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
6. It is contended that on account of non-payment of rent and
electricity charges, electricity to the portion of the petitioner got
disconnected.
7. It is contended that Petitioners would quarrel with the
respondent and even caused injury to the respondent for which an
MLC was recorded on 29.04.2018 and a case was registered against
the petitioners.
8. It is contended that even though petitioners did not pay the
amount towards electricity charges, the electricity was restored
consequent to directions issued by this court.
9. It is contended that since petitioners have neither paid the rent
nor other charges, respondent has been constrained to file the subject
Suit for Possession, Recovery of rent/damages and Permanent
Injunction.
10. Trial court in the impugned order has reproduced the
admissions made in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Written Statement.
Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the written statement read as under:
"a) That the defendants are staying in the suit property
along with children since 30.09.2018 as a tenants.
b) At the time when the defendants took the property on
rent from the plaintiff, the defendantpaid an advance rent
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
of Rs.4000/- through cheque dated 19.09.2018 and
thereafter also paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as refundable
security deposit in cash, however, despite time and again
approaching the plaintiff to enter into a written lease
agreement, the plaintiff kept dillydallyingand has not
executed an agreement in writing till date. In fact, the
plaintiff had further received Rs. 4000/- (300/- cash and
3700/- by way of cheque) amounts from the defendant
No. 1 in favour of Mr Binay Jodi for execute regd.
Rentagreement, who is well-known of plaintiff. Copy of
the passbook of the defendant no. 1 bearing customer ID
No. 77854806 reflecting the payments made to the
plaintiff and to Mr Binay Jogi, on account of plaintiff, is
annexed herewith."
11. In view of the above admissions made by the petitioners in the
Written Statement in the impugned order, Trial Court has held that it
is crystal clear that the Petitioners were tenants in respect of the Suit
Property and since there is a clear and unambiguous admission on the
part of the Petitioners with respect to the relationship of tenant and
landlord in paragraph 3(a) and (b) of the written statement, Decree of
Possession under order 12 rule 6 CPC, in respect of Suit Property was
passed.
12. When this petition was listed before this court on 15.01.2020,
this court issued notice to the respondent limited to the issue of grant
of time to vacate the premises. Petitioners were directed to bring a
sum of Rs. 15,000/- to pay to the respondent. Thereafter there was a
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
lockdown and the cases could not be taken up.
13. On 23.07.2020, it was contended by the respondent that as on
31.07.2020, the petitioners were in arrears of rent of about 21 months
@ Rs. 4,000/- per month.
14. Counsel for the petitioner, under instructions from the
petitioner, who was present in the office of the Counsel stated that
petitioner would clear the entire arrears in four equal monthly
instalments and would also continue to pay monthly use and
occupation charges @ Rs. 4,000/- per month regularly.
15. On the above assurance, the case was adjourned and the
question with regard to grant of some reasonable time to vacate the
premises was deferred subject to petitioners complying with the
assurance given to the court with regard to payment of arrears of use
and occupation charges.
16. The Order directing the petitioners to clear the arrears of use
and occupation charges was not complied with. On 07.10.2020, the
advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought discharge
contending that he had been appointed as an Amicus Curie and since
petitioners were not giving proper instructions he could not continue
to represent the petitioners. Noting his contentions, said advocate was
discharged. On the request of the Petitioner No. 1, case was thereafter
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
adjourned to 12.10.2020 and thereafter to 15.10.2020 when on the
request of the petitioner another advocate was appointed to represent
the petitioner by the court.
17. On the next date i.e. 03.11.2020 the second advocate appointed
by the court also showed his inability to continue to represent the
petitioner.
18. Petitioner No. 1 who was present in person thereafter made his
submission on his petition and contended that the respondent by
illegal means had sought to evict the petitioner and had assaulted him
and his family and in the processhad caused substantial loss of
property to him of over Rs. 5 lakhs.
19. It was contended that the respondent has connived with the
police officers to evict the petitioners and his family from the tenanted
premises. It was contended that because the respondent has caused
substantial monetary loss to the petitioner, respondent had filed the
subject Suit as a counter blast. No submission was made on the merits
of the Impugned order. Orders in the case were reserved and the
Petitioner was given an opportunity to file a written note of his
submissions.
20. Written Note of submissions has been filed by the petitioner,
written in hand, which is in the Hindi vernacular. Though the index
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
states that there are annexures to the note but no annexures have been
filed and only a 7 page handwritten note has been handed over to the
court master. There is an endorsement on the index that "All the
documents, details, proofs, records etc. are available to produce in
Hon'ble Court if required". The Note as filed is taken on record.
21. In the written note filed by the petitioner, petitioner has made
several averments which are completely unrelated to the case at hand
and are not relevant.
22. He has contended that in a scheme of political conspiracy,
attempt to kill, illegal actions, Respondent has misled the court in
connivance with the police. Respondent should compensate the
Petitioner for loss of his property and damage caused to the tune of
Rs. 5,61,000/-. Thereafter, he has given a description of his family;
about himself and his mission in life i.e. to become the Prime Minister
and President of India; his problems; history etc.
23. In view of the above, this court has once again examined the
Plaint and the Written Statement filed by the petitioners in detail.
24. Respondent had filed the subject Suit inter alia for Possession
contending that he is the owner of the property and had let out the
tenanted premises to the Petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/-.
There is no lease deed executed between the parties. The Petitioners
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
are in arrears of rent and other charges.Notice dated 20.08.2018
terminating the tenancy was served on the Petitioners.
25. In response to the contention of the respondent in the plaint, it
is admitted by the petitioners that they are tenants in the subject
property. It is also admitted that the rate of rent is Rs. 4,000/- per
month.
26. In the Written Statement in the Reply on Merits, to the
averments in the Plaint, it is stated by the petitioners that they had
approached the plaintiff in the middle of September 2017 for taking
the premises on rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 20,000/- was
paid as a refundable security. It is denied that notice dated 20.08.2018
was ever received.
27. In a Suit for Possession, alandlord has to show that there is a
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; the tenancy is
not a protected tenancy and that there is no subsisting term of lease.
28. It is admitted by the petitioners in the Written Statement that
petitioners are tenants in the subject property @ rate of Rs. 4,000/- per
month. It is also an admitted case that there is no lease deed executed
between the parties thereby implying that there is no subsisting term
of tenancy and the petitioners are tenants on a month-to-month basis.
29. It is also not denied by the petitioners that they have not paid
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
the arrears of rent. In the Written Statement apart from contending
that they have paid rent in cash up till March 2018 and electricity bill
up to February 2018 petitioners have neither contended nor shown
that rent or electricity charges thereafter were paid by the petitioners
30. Respondent/landlord by way of the admissions of the
petitioners has established the ingredients required to be proved for
securing an order of eviction i.e. (i) relationship of landlord and tenant
(ii) no subsisting term of tenancy.With regard to the service of the
notice dated 20.08.2018, terminating the tenancy, it may be seen that
since there is no lease deed, admittedly, executed between the parties,
Petitioners were tenants from month to month. Though, the receipt of
termination notice is denied, it is settled law that even filing of a Suit
for Possession amounts to termination of tenancy.
31. The Trial Court has rightly relied upon the admissions made in
the Written Statement and passed a Decree of Possession in favour of
the respondents and against the petitioners under Order 12 Rule 6
CPC.
32. The contentions raised by the petitioner in his written note as
noticed hereinabove are not relevant for the purposes of determining
the present lis and do not go to further the case of the Petitioners.
33. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court in
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
relying upon the admissions in the Written Statement and passing an
order of eviction. No ground has been raised by the petitioners either
in the petition; during his oral submissions or the written note to show
that there is any infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court in
passing a Decree of Possession based on admissions.
34. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition
is accordingly dismissed. In view of the fact that petitioner has
substantially delayed the execution of the order of eviction and has
also failed to comply with the directions issued by this court on
15.01.2020, directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to
the respondent and has also failed to honour the assurance given to
this court on 23.07.2020, that he shall clear the entire arrears in four
equal monthly instalments and thereafter continue to pay user and
occupation charges @ Rs. 4,000 per month, this petition is dismissed
with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-.
35. Copy of the judgment be uploaded on the High Court website
and be also forwarded to learned counsels/parties through email by the
Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 05, 2021
HJ
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:05.01.2021 22:11:38
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
