Jagatnarain Saraf v. Syndicate Bank .

J.M Malik, Chairperson:— The controversy in this case pivots around the question whether Mr. Jagat Narain Saraf, the appellant, since deceased through his L.Rs was the lawful tenant of premises bearing No. 423, first floor, Katra Choban, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Counsel for the appellant claimed that the appellant was in possession of he said property prior to its being mortgaged by the borrower, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain.

2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed two rent notes on the record. The first note was executed by Mr. Ram Swamp Dass Saraf father of Mr. Jagat Narain Saraf, appellant in favour of its landlord M/s. L.N Gadodia and Sons Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to the first floor of property bearing Municipal No. 423/24 situated in Katra Choban, Chandni Chowk, Delhi for a period of 11 months on 9.5.1968

3. The second rent note was executed by Mr. Ram Swarup Dass Saraf, Mr. Jagat Narain Saraf and Mr. Ashok Kumar Saraf in favour of their landlord M/s. L.N Gadodia and Son Private Ltd. on 28.10.1973 in respect of property bearing Municipal No. 423/24 situated in Katra Choban, Chandni Chowk, Delhi for a period of M months. The appellant has also placed a number of rent receipts in his favour.

4. On the other hand Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that there is no proof that the appellant was in possession of the property in dispute. Counsel for the respondent Bank has invited my attention towards the sale deed which was executed on 24th day of May 1993 by Smt. Santosh Khanna in favour of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain. Para No. 4 of the sale deed mentions that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, vendee was already in possession of the property as a tenant and the vendor had delivered the proprietary/symbolic possession to vendee Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, The names of Mr. Jagat Narain Saraf, his father or son found no place therein.

5. Again, there is valuation report prepared by Mr. Ramesh Chandra and Associates dated 6.1.2007 which at its internal para No. 3 clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that the property is fully self-occupied by the owner Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the appeal is without merit and the same deserves to be dismissed with costs.

6. For the following reasons I am unable to countenance the findings recorded by the learned DRT. Instead of touching the heart of the problem, the learned Counsel for the respondent just skirted it. The evidence on the record clearly goes to show that the appellant was a tenant in the property in dispute. This is an indisputable fact that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain took loan from the respondent Bank but could not adhere to the repayment scheme and as such the above said property was ordered to be auctioned/sold.

7. The appellant has produced on record a note sent to Mr. Ram Swaroop Saraf, Mr. Jagat Narain Saraf and Mr. Ashok Saraf by L.N Gadodia and Sons Pvt. Ltd. dated 6.2.1974 wherein Mr. Jagat Narain Saraf was apprised of the fact that the property in question had been sold to Smt. Ram Piari Chopra wife of Shri Mohan Lal Chopra and Smt. Lima Chopra wife of Shri Krishan Lal Chopra vide sale deed dated 6.2.1974 Mr. Ram Saroop Dass Saraf, Mr. Jagat Narain Saraf and Mr. Ashok Kumar Saraf were directed to attorn to the new landlord.

8. The appellant has placed on record various rent receipts: These rent receipts are divided in three parts. Firstly, the rent receipts were issued by L.N Gadodia and Son Private Limited; then rent receipts were issued by Smt. Ram Piari Chopra and Smt. Uma Chopra and lastly rent receipts were issued by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain. The details of these receipts are mentioned below:

I. L.N Gadodia and Son Private Limited.

Receipt No. Dated No. Premises Received from 1912 09.05.1968 423 Jamna Das Rameshwar Das 1911 07.05.1988 423 Jamna Das Rameshwar Das 4339 10.03.1971 424 Ram Swaroop Saraf 128 02.12.1971 424 Ram Swaroop Saraf 400 02.05.1972 424 Ram Swaroop Saraf 1738 26.09.1973 424. Ram Swaroop Saraf 1869 03.11.1973 424 Ram Swaroop Saraf 1870 03.11.1973 424 Ram Swaroop Das Jagat Narayan Das and Ashok Kumar Saraf 2211 29.03.1974 424 Ram Swaroop Das Jagat Narayan Das and Ashok Kumar Saraf

II. Smt. Ram Piari Chopra and Smt. Uma Chopra

Receipt No. Dated Premises Received from 5 03.07.1975 423 Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 8 02.01.1976 423 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 13 28.09.1976 423 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 14 29.09.1976 423 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 21 19.04.1977 423 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 26 31.03.1978 423 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 32 23.04.1979 423 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 36 12.02.1980 423 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 39 16.12.2000 423 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 1 24.10.1981 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 13 10.03.1984 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 18 26.02.1985 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 21 05.02.1986 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 22. 24.03.1987 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 23 01.09.1988 424 G.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 24 22.07.1989 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 25 04.08.1990 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 26 03.05.1991 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar

III. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Jain

Receipt No. Dated Premises Received from 1 04.02.1994 424 Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 4 18.00.1995 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 5 15.11.1995 424 Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 6 22.03.1997 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 7 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 8 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999 424 Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 9 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 424 Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 10 02.04.2000 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 11 05.04.2001 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 12 02.04.2002 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 13 16.02.2004 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Margin and Ashok Kumar 14 05.04.2005 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 15 13.09.2006 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar 16 10.07.2007 424 F.F Ram Swaroop Jagat Narain and Ashok Kumar

The appellant has claimed that he remained in possession of the premises in dispute till he was dispossessed by the Bank.

9. There is report of the local commissioner dated 15.4.2009 Its para Nos. 5, 6 and 7 run as follows:

“5. That the premises/shops in question were identified by the applicant and officer of the respondent Bank. There is a shop bearing No. 423 and shop bearing No. 425 but there is no shop bearing No. 424 and on the inquiry from the owner/occupants of adjacent shops it is revealed that 424 is the number of the staircase.

6. That I also made inspection of the adjacent shops. There is a shop bearing Nos. 420 and 422 and in between there is a stair case which has been told by the occupants of the said shops that it is a stair case which has been given the No. 421.

7. That the undersigned obtained the directory of the occupants of the all the shops at Katra Choban in which details of the occupants and shop numbers are mentioned. From the perusal of the said directory it is also clear that there is a stair case after a gap of some shops. The copy of the directory of traders of Katra Choban is annexed herewith as Annexure-A.”

10. All these facts and circumstances and the documentary evidence put the case of the appellant in an impregnable position. He is an old tenant who was inducted in the premises in dispute prior to Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain mortgaged the property in dispute in favour of the Bank. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain has taken the loan subsequently and had mortgaged the above said case property by depositing the title deeds. In view of the abundant evidence produced by the appellant it is clear that the recital made in the sale deed dated 24.5.1993 that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jain was in physical possession of the premises in dispute and the valuation report prepared by Mr. Ramesh Chandra and Associates dated 6.1.2007 appear to be incorrect and false. It appears that the same were prepared by the borrower while working in cahoots with Mr. Ramesh Chandra and Associates as well as the concerned Bank officials. Consequently, I place no reliance on these documents. On the contrary, I hold that the appellant was a prior tenant and was illegally dispossessed from the premises in dispute.

11. In the result, I hereby accept the appeal. The possession of the premises in dispute be restored to the appellant within one month from today. The appellant is also directed to attorn to the Bank mortgagee and pay the rent to the Bank at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The appellant is further directed to deposit Rs. 300/- as six months' advanced rent with the concerned Bank before taking over the possession and will go on paying the rent month by month on 7th day of each succeeding English calendar month with the Bank till the above said tenancy subsists. The Bank is precluded from proceeding against the appellant save under the provisions of the tenancy laws. Nothing will debar the Bank from auctioning/selling the property in dispute along with the tenancy/tenant after acquiring symbolic possession of the same, as per law.

12. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy each be sent to the learned DRT.

Appeal allowed.