Delhi High Court
Sh Praveen Kumar vs Sh Gurnail Singh Gill And Anr. on 20 May, 2022
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:-20.05.2022.
+ RFA 183/2022 & CM APPL. 20823/2022(Stay), CM APPL.
20825/2022 (Court Fees), CM APPL. 23205/2022 (Addl.doc)
SH PRAVEEN KUMAR
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.P.K.Rawal with Mr.Charanjeet
Bhalla
Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advs. Petitioner in person.
versus
SH GURNAIL SINGH GILL AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta with
Mr.Abhishek Goyal, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J(ORAL)
1. The present appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has
been preferred by the defendant no.1 in suit no. 8812/2016 (new) assailing
the judgment dated 17.01.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-06, Tis Hazari
Court, Delhi. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has
decreed the suit filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff for possession of the
property bearing House no.330, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, along with arrears of
rent of Rs. 2,24,000/- payable with interest @ 12% per annum and has also
directed the appellant to pay mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/- per month w.e.f.
01.09.2013.
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:23.05.2022
12:51:59
2. The brief facts emerging from the record are that the respondent
no.1/Plaintiff inherited the suit property through a will dated 23.05.1979
from his father Mr. Sohan Singh Gill. In the year 2010, the respondent no.1
appointed his uncle, Mr. Sardar Piara Singh as his Special Power of
Attorney (hereinafter referred to as SPA) in respect of the suit property. On
22.06.2011, the respondent no.1 through his SPA entered into a lease
agreement for a period of eleven months qua the suit property with the
appellant, as per the terms of this lease agreement the monthly rent of this
premises was fixed at Rs. 12,500/- per month. It is the respondent no.1's
case that as the appellant stopped paying rent w.e.f. May, 2012, the lease in
accordance with clause 16 of the agreement stood automatically terminated
after 30 days. As the appellant despite failing to pay the rent still did not
vacate the premises, the respondent no.1 through his SPA issued a legal
notice dated 27.07.2013 terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 30.08.2013 and
thereafter instituted the suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits
which has been decreed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned
judgment.
3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed
the following issues on 11.05.2017:
"i. ISSUE No.1 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
possession of the property bearing no. H-330, Vikaspuri, New
Delhi-110018? OPP
ii, ISSUE No.2 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
damages/mesne profit, if so, to what rate? OPP
iii. ISSUE No.3 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on
the amount of damages/mesne profit, if so, at what rate and for
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:23.05.2022
12:51:59
which period? OPP
iv. ISSUE No.4 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an amount
of Rs.2,24,000/- towards arrears of rent from defendant No.1
Sh. Praveen Kumar? OPP
v. ISSUE No.5 - Whether the rent agreement dated 22.06.2011
is a forged and fabricated document? OPD
vi. ISSUE No.6 - Whether the suit is barred by Sec. 50 of the
DRC Act? OPD
vii. ISSUE No.7 - RELIEF"
4. In his written statement the appellant besides claiming that the lease
agreement was a forged document, took the plea that the monthly rent of the
premises was only Rs. 2,500/- and not Rs.12,500/-, the suit was barred as his
tenancy was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The
appellant did not lead any evidence and that too despite having been granted
another opportunity by this Court on 01.10.2019 in CM (M) 1449/2019 filed
by him. The respondent no.1 however, examined six witnesses in support of
his claim and therefore the learned trial Court while observing that the
appellant had been delaying the matter ever since the inception of the suit,
decreed the same by taking into account the evidence led by the respondent
no.1. The relevant findings of the learned trial Court read as under:
"20. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants
particularly the defendant No.1 who asserted that the monthly rent
was Rs.2,500/-. The plaintiff had the prime onus to prove its whole
Case and asserted that the monthly rent was Rs.12,000/- for which
the plaintiff adduced the 'unregistered' Lease Deed dated Lease
Deed dated 22.06.2011. On the monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-
(Ex.PW-ll7) vide which Sh. Piara Singh (attorney of the plaintiff-
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:23.05.2022
12:51:59
herein) had inducted the defendant No.1 (Sh. Praveen Kumar) as
the tenant in the premises
26. The best proof of the monthly rent is the "rent receipt" and the
onus to produce such a receipt was upon the defendant No.1 which
has not been adduced. The DRC Act is a beneficial legislation and
its benefit can be availed by the tenant only on strict compliance
on part of the tenant defendant no.1 with the provisions of the said
act.
39. Apart from the aspect of non-applicability of the DRC Act
(reliance on the judgments aforementioned), the plaintiff also
succeeds on the test reasonableness of rent. It is now clearly
established that the monthly rent was much more than Rs.2,500/-
(as contended by the defendant no.1) and even more than the cap
as provided under the DRC Act.
74. In the present case the defendant No.1 has miserable failed to
adduce evidence in support of any of his contentions. The plaintiff
has discharged its onus to prove that the rent remained unpaid @
Rs.12,500/- from May, 2012 till Aug.20l3}. The plaintiff is also
justified in levying [email protected]% per annum on the arrears of
rent. Therefore, the plaintiff is found entitled to the amount
Rs.2,24,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh & Twenty Four Thousand only)
along with the interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f the dated filing of
this suit i.e:05.09.2013 till its realization."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while passing the
impugned judgment not only has the learned trial Court failed to appreciate
that the suit filed by the respondent no.1 was premised on a forged lease
agreement but even otherwise there were substantial contradictions in the
testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses. He contends that the FSL report
dated 28.06.2019 obtained pursuant to the FIR lodged by the appellant
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:23.05.2022
12:51:59
clearly shows that the lease agreement dated 22.06.2011 was a forged
document.
6. Moreover, the respondent no.1 had failed to produce any rent receipt
in support of his plea that the monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 12,500/-.
He contends that the learned trial Court ought to have accepted the
appellant's plea that he was paying a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and
therefore, the suit for possession was not maintainable as the only remedy
available to the respondent no.1 was to file an eviction petition before the
learned Rent Controller.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, who
appears on advance notice, vehemently opposes the appeal. He denies that
there was either any contradiction in the testimony of the respondent's
witnesses or that the lease deed was found to be forged as per the report
given by the FSL. He submits that the appellant having failed to lead any
evidence cannot now contend that the evidence led by respondent no.1 was
insufficient or that the monthly rent of the premises was Rs.2, 500/- and not
Rs.12, 500/-.
8. He further submits that the dishonest conduct of the appellant, as
recorded in the impugned judgment as well, is evident from the fact that
even though vide order dated 01.10.2019 passed by this Court in CM(M)
1449/2019, he was granted yet another opportunity to lead evidence, he had
failed to do so. He therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, I find absolutely no merit in the present
appeal. The appellant clearly appears to be a dishonest tenant, who while
not denying that he had entered into possession of the premises being House
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:23.05.2022
12:51:59
no.330, Vikaspuri, New Delhi as a tenant, is trying to claim that the lease
agreement dated 22.06.2011, according to which the monthly rent was fixed
at Rs.12,500/- was a forged document. In the absence of any evidence led by
him, the appellant's bald plea that the rent was only Rs.2, 500/- per month
has been rightly rejected by the leaned trial Court. Even otherwise this Court
can take judicial notice of the fact that the subject premises is an
independent three bedroom house in Vikaspuri, New Delhi, and the monthly
rent of such premises even in the year 2011, was much higher than
Rs.2,500/-. In any event, once the appellant failed to even step into the
witness box or lead any evidence at all, and that too despite a specific
opportunity being granted by this Court on 01.10.2019, it is evident that no
reliance can be placed on this bald plea of the appellant.
10. Insofar as the appellant's contention qua the contradictions in the
statements of PW 1 and PW 2 regarding the number of persons who had
signed the lease agreement is concerned, the same is noted only to be
rejected. Having carefully perused the statements of PW 1 and 2, I find that
the only difference that can be found between the two statements is that
while PW 1 has stated that the lease agreement was signed by 5 witnesses,
PW 2 had stated that the same was signed by 4 witnesses. In my considered
opinion, once neither PW 1 nor PW 2 had named the signatories of the lease
agreement, this minor variation in the number of signatories of the lease
agreement as per the recollection of the two witnesses, after a passage of six
years cannot be treated as any contradiction whatsoever. In fact, the same
only lends credence to the testimony of these witnesses, who appear to be
untutored witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:23.05.2022
12:51:59
11. I have also perused the FSL report dated 28.06.2019 on which heavy
reliance has been placed by the appellant but find that the same also does not
support the appellant's plea that the lease agreement was forged. In fact, the
said report only records on account of a different model being used in the
two sets of signatures; it was not possible to express any opinion on the
questioned signatures on the lease agreement in comparison to the specimen
signatures. In fact it is also undisputed that on the basis of this FSL report,
the police have already filed a final report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C.
12. It is thus evident that the appellant is merely trying to somehow
continue to stay in the property and that too without paying any rent or
mesne profits whatsoever to the owner.
13. The respondent no.1, who even as per the appellant is the owner of
the subject premises has been waiting patiently for almost 10 years to get
possession of his property from a tenant like the appellant who is not even
paying any rent since May, 2012. In my view, any interference with the
impugned judgment at the behest of a dishonest tenant will be against the
interest of justice.
14. I, therefore, find absolutely no reason to interfere with the well-
reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal, along with all
pending applications stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
REKHA PALLI, J
MAY 20, 2022/sr
Signature Not Verified
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:23.05.2022
12:51:59
