Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

R.C. Rev. 328/2018 and CM Appl. 28768/2018, 42832/2018

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Mr. N.N. Jha and Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocates.
Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr. Sumit Kundu and Ms. Bhumika Kapoor, Advocates.

Judges

Yogesh Khanna, J.

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Case Summary — RC.REV. 328/2018: Natha Singh v. Sukhpal Singh

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition by Natha Singh challenges an eviction order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition RC/ARC 23/2017 (Shri Sukhpal Singh vs. Natha Singh) concerning premises A-3, Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. The respondent (Sukhpal Singh) filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act), alleging he is the owner by a chain of registered sale deeds and requires the premises for family/business use.

Chronology (as stated in the opinion): the premises were let by Sh. Mahender Pratap Gupta to Sh. Jamait Singh (the petitioner's father) by a rent deed dated 10.10.1966. Upon Jamait Singh's death, the petitioner succeeded to the tenancy and continued paying rent: first to Smt. Angoori Devi (widow of Mahender Pratap Gupta), then to her son Mr. Suraj Bhan. Mr. Suraj Bhan sold to Ms. Poonam Chopra by sale deed dated 18.06.1996; she re-sold to Mr. Jaswinder Singh Gulati by registered sale deed dated 20.10.2000 (mutation effected despite petitioner's objections); Mr. Gulati thereafter sold to the present respondent by a registered sale deed dated 23.23.2010 (as recorded in the opinion).

Procedurally, the petitioner had earlier litigated against Ms. Poonam Chopra (an injunction suit decreed on 31.03.1997), and other proceedings between the parties or related persons are described in the opinion. The challenge before this Court was an attack on the ARC's eviction order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the tenant (petitioner) can challenge the chain of registered sale deeds (including a contention of forgery) in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Whether attornment by the tenant is a prerequisite for a transferee / purchaser to claim eviction under the DRC Act.
Whether the subject property is an "open land" (not covered by the DRC Act) or a premises falling under the DRC Act — and whether the petitioner's prior statements/written pleadings estop him from now contending the property is open land.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to file the additional affidavit(s) and whether those affidavits could alter the leave-to-defend position.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The sale deed executed by Ms. Poonam Chopra in favour of Mr. Jaswinder Singh Gulati (and the subsequent chain) is forged: it is not signed by Mr. Gulati, it falsely records delivery of physical possession to Gulati while actual possession remained with the petitioner, and it erroneously describes the property as freehold built-up when the 10.10.1966 rent deed describes it as land.
The petitioner was not given any notice of the sale and therefore did not attorn to any subsequent purchaser.
The 10.10.1966 rent deed describes the premises as open space/land (albeit permitting primary construction), and the petitioner and his father have been running a timber business there since 1966; thus the premises should not be treated as falling under the DRC Act.
The learned Trial Court/ARC did not consider an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner contesting the eviction petition on the ground that the premises was open land.

Respondent's / Landlord's Contentions (as presented in the opinion)

The respondent asserted ownership by registered sale deeds in his favour (chain tracing back to earlier transfers) and thus claimed a better title than the tenant for purposes of Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act.
The respondent stated he requires the premises for establishment of business and residential accommodation for his family and sons, alleging existing accommodation is insufficient.
Implicitly, the respondent maintained that challenges to the title chain are not triable in eviction proceedings and that attornment is not necessary.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Krishna Devi Sharma thr. LRs & Anr. vs. Yadukul Guglani & Ors. RC.Rev.568/2015	That the concept of ownership for purposes of the DRC Act is not absolute ownership but is "merely of something more than the tenant."	The Court relied on this principle to treat a person with a registered sale deed as being the owner vis-à-vis the tenant for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e), and to hold that challenging the chain of sale deeds is not a triable issue in eviction proceedings.
Gopal Kishan vs. Ram Saroop RC.Rev. No.443/2017	That attornment by the tenant is not required.	The Court referenced this decision to support the proposition that non-attornment does not defeat the purchaser/owner's claim in eviction proceedings.
Vijay Sharma vs. Namita Aggarwal RC.Rev.422/2017	That attornment is not required (similar proposition).	The Court cited this authority alongside Gopal Kishan to reinforce that attornment is not a necessary precondition for the purchaser to evict a tenant under the DRC Act.
Subhash Chandra Vs Mohammad Sharif and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 636	Relates to cases where the original landlord had only a right of possession and no power of disposition.	The Court held this authority inapplicable to the present case because there was no challenge to the right of disposition of the earlier owners (Mahender Pratap Gupta, Smt. Angoori Devi or Mr. Suraj Bhan) in the chain of title.
Noor Elahi (D.) vs. Shaikh Abdul Gafar 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter 192	Holds that whether a property is a "premises" within the meaning of the Rent Control Act is a mixed question of law and fact, and that it is for the plaintiff to show an admission was not true.	The Court considered the authority but rejected the petitioner's argument that his prior admissions should be ignored, noting the petitioner had admitted he became a tenant after his father's death under an oral tenancy; therefore the authority did not assist the petitioner on facts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in stages, applying the DRC Act and relevant authorities to the facts and pleadings:

On challenge to title and forgery/attornment (contentions (a) and (b)): the Court observed that a tenant is not the proper forum to litigate the validity of registered sale deeds in eviction proceedings. Under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act the landlord/purchaser must show a better title than the tenant; a registered sale deed in favour of the purchaser is sufficient to establish that comparative title for eviction purposes. The Court treated allegations of forgery of the chain of sale deeds and want of attornment as not triable in eviction proceedings and relied on prior decisions holding attornment is not required.
On the question whether the property is an 'open land' or premises (contention (c)): the Court noted the existence of earlier litigation and correspondence. Specifically, Ms. Poonam Chopra's legal notice of 11.07.1996 alleged the 1966 deed was for land and tenancy had expired; the petitioner replied on 24.07.1996 asserting the tenancy was governed by the DRC Act and claiming an oral lease after his father's death. The petitioner had taken a position in earlier proceedings that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction; having so elected, the Court held the petitioner could not subsequently assert before the Additional Rent Controller that the property was an open land to escape the DRC Act. Thus the petitioner's plea of open land was held to have lost relevance in view of his earlier pleadings and admissions.
On filing of additional affidavit(s) (contention (d)): the Court found the petitioner had not demonstrated a right to file the additional affidavit(s) in the manner urged; the additional affidavit reiterated the same stand already taken. The Court observed the petitioner could have amended his leave to defend but did not show that the additional affidavit altered the issue; accordingly, the ARC's treatment of such material was not shown to be illegal or infirm.
On reliance upon Subhash Chandra and other authorities: the Court distinguished Subhash Chandra as concerned with landlords who had only possession without disposition; here there was no challenge to the earlier owners' capacity to dispose of the property. The Court also considered and rejected the petitioner's reliance on Noor Elahi for the reasons noted above (the petitioner had admissions inconsistent with his present stance).

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The petition is dismissed. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit. Pending applications, if any, were also dismissed.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the eviction order dated 19.03.2018 (ARC, Tis Hazari Courts) remains in force and the petitioner's challenge is unsuccessful.
The Court reaffirmed the limited scope for tenants to challenge the title of registered purchasers in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act and endorsed authorities holding attornment is not a prerequisite; this application relates to the parties before the Court and the Court did not purport to lay down a broad new principle beyond the cited precedents.

Decision delivered by: Yogesh Khanna, J. — December 18, 2018.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Natha Singh v. Sukhpal Singh .

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%^thReserved on: 10 December, 2018 th

Pronounced on: 18 December, 2018 + RC.REV. 328/2018 and CM APPL.28768/2018, 42832/2018

NATHA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr.N.N.Jha and Mr.Abhinav Singh, Advocates.

versus

SUKHPAL SINGH ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ajay Kohli, Mr.Sumit Kundu and Ms.Bhumika Kapoor,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. This petition challenges an order of eviction dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned ARC, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition RC/ARC 23/2017 titled as Shri Sukhpal Singh vs. Natha Singh in respect of the premises A-3, Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, Delhi.

2. Before coming to the impugned judgment it would appropriate to state few facts; the respondent had filed the Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act against the petitioner herein. It was alleged the suit premises was let out by the previous owner Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta to Sh.Jamait Singh, father of the petitioner vide a rent deed dated 10.10.1966. On the death of Sh.Jamait Singh, his son namely Natha Singh, the petitioner herein, succeeded to the tenancy and he started paying rent to Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta.

3. After the death of Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta the petitioner continued paying rent to Smt.Angoori Devi widow of Late Sh.Mahender

Pratap Gupta. After the death of Smt.Angoori Devi, her son namely Mr.Suraj Bhan sold the suit property to one Ms.Poonam Chopra vide a sale deed dated 18.06.1996. She re-sold it to one Mr.Jaswinder Singh Gulati vide a registered Sale Deed dated 20.10.2000. The mutation, despite objections by the petitioner, was effected in the name of Mr.Jaswinder Singh Gulati. He thereafter sold the property to the present respondent vide a registered Sale Deed dated 23.23.2010.

4. The respondent has alleged his family consist of his wife and two married sons and they all are residing in a house of 60 sq. yds. with his two brothers at village Garhi, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi which accommodation is not sufficient for him and hence the premises is required for establishing the business for his sons as the premises is situated in the commercial area. The respondent intend to establish shops on the ground floor of the property and residential accommodation on its floors above.

5. The petitioner herein admitted his father was a tenant since 1966 under Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta and then he became tenant and have been paying rent to Mrs.Angoori Devi and after her death, to her son namely Mr.Suraj Bhan. He alleges Mr.Suraj Bhan sold this property to Mrs.Poonam Chopra. Since there was some dispute with Mrs.Poonam so the petitioner filed a suit for injunction against Mrs.Poonam Chopra and her husband Mr.Pradeep Chopra, which was decreed on 31.03.1997 by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi. Mrs.Poonam Chopra then filed a suit for possession and damages against the petitioner but it was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is alleged that Mrs.Poonam Chopra in collusion with one Mr.Virender Kumar filed filed a criminal case under Section 420,

504 IPC against the petitioner herein at Jammu which was dismissed and

then the petitioner had filed a suit for damages/compensation against Mrs.Poonam Chopra and her husband but they could not be served as had left this address. The said suit was later decreed in favour of the petitioner and whereas Mr.Virender kumar compromised and paid the damages to the petitioner.

6. Thus, the petitioner herein has attacked the eviction order, primarily, on four grounds (a) the sale deed executed by Mrs.Poonam Chopra in favour of Mr.Jaswinder Singh Gulati is a forged document since is not signed by Mr.Jaswinder Singh Gulati at all and since it notes that she had handed over the physical possession of the premises to Mr.Jaswinder Singh whereas the actual possession of the property was with the petitioner herein and further says the sale deed describe the suit property as a free hold built up property whereas it is only a land, per rent deed dated 10.10.1966; (b) the petitioner was never given any notice of sale, hence did not attorn to any subsequent purchaser; (c) the rent deed dated 10.10.1966 which was executed between Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta and Late Sh.Jamait singh, the father of petitioner herein described the premises as an open space/land though it gave the tenant a right to construct primary structure and to remove it as and when he was asked to vacate. It is alleged the petitioner and his father have been running a timber business since 1966 in the said premises and (d) the learned Trial Court had not considered an additional affidavit wherein the petitioner has contested the eviction petition, allegedly, on the ground the premises was an open land.

7. Qua contentions (a) and (b) viz. the attornment and the challenge to the sale deeds dated 20.10.2000 executed by Mrs.Poonam Chopra in favour of Mr.J.S.Gulati and its finer points is most fallacious since the

petitioner is merely a tenant and has no right to challenge such sale deeds in eviction proceedings. All that under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) the respondent/landlord needs to show is that he has a better title than the tenant. Admittedly the petitioner has registered sale deed executed in his favour executed by Mr.J.S.Gulati and he has explained the entire chain of ownership documents. Admittedly the petitioner considered him a tenant in respect of the premises even under Poonam Chopra. Thus the learned ARC has rightly held the petitioner, if challenges the ownership, needs to disclose as to who else is the owner of the premises. Claiming the chain of Sale Deeds to be forged documents would never be a triable issue. A person who has got the registered sale deed in its favour is considered to be the owner and even otherwise the concept of his ownership in DRC Act is not of absolute ownership but merely of something more than the tenant, as held in Krishna Devi Sharma thr. LRs & Anr. vs. Yadukul Guglani & Ors. RC.Rev.568/2015

8. Further in Gopal Kishan vs. Ram Saroop RC.Rev. No.443/2017 and in Vijay Sharma vs. Namita Aggarwal RC.Rev.422/2017 the Court rather held the attornment is not required.

9. Qua contention (c) I may refer to a legal notice dated 11.07.1996 sent by Mrs.Poonam Chopra wherein she had alleged that vide a rent deed dated 10.10.1966 a piece of land was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rental of 178/- and which tenancy has since expired and she has given instruction to her counsel to file a suit for possession against the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein gave a reply dated 24.07.1996 wherein the petitioner alleged the lease is for the premises and is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act and not under the Transfer of Property Act. Secondly he alleged after the death of his father he became

the lessee of the premises which was then constructed and a fresh lease was created in favour of the petitioner by an oral agreement and therefore the premises would fall under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

10. Admittedly a suit for possession was filed by the respondent wherein in his written statement the petitioner had claimed the Rent Controller has jurisdiction, hence the said suit for possession was not carried forward by Smt.Poonam Chopra and was dismissed for non- prosecution. Mrs.Poonam Chopra then sold the premises to Mr.J.S.Gulati. Now once the petitioner has taken a stand viz. the rent controller only has jurisdiction then he is not permitted to take a new plea viz. the subject premises is an open land before the Additional Rent Controller to say that Delhi Rent Control Act would not be applicable.

11. On contention (d) the petitioner has failed to satisfy if he has any right to file additional affidavit(s), as and when he wishes even though within the period for filing his leave to defend. He may have rather amended his leave to defend application. Even otherwise, I have perused the additional affidavit wherein the petitioner has yet again taken the same stand viz. the premises was a plot let out to his late father and the learned Additional Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to deal with the subject. However, considering his own reply and written statement filed by the petitioner to the suit for possession filed by Mrs.Poonam, his plea of open land has lost its relevance.

12. The law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz. Subhash Chandra Vs Mohammad Sharif and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 636 is not applicable since it relates to a case where the original landlord had only a right of possession and had no power of its disposition. However in the

present case no challenge is made to the right of disposition of either Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta or Smt.Angoori Devi or of Mr.Suraj Bhan.

13. The another judgment cited by the petitioner is Noor Elahi (D.) vs. Shaikh Abdul Gafar 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter 192 which held whether the property is premises within the meaning of Rent Control Act is not a pure question of law but is a mixed question of law and fact and it is upon the plaintiff to show his admission was not true, hence it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if he has admitted it was the premises and not an open land in reply and in written statement, such admission, should have been ignored. I am not inclined to accept this argument as the admission is not only qua the open land/premises but he has also made admission of the fact that after the death of his father, he become a tenant of the premises under an oral tenancy. Thus the rent agreement dated 10.10.1966, even otherwise, would be of no relevance in view of these admissions, hence the judgment cited is not applicable on facts.

14. Considering the facts above I find no illegality/infirmity in the view taken by the learned Additional Rent Controller, hence, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

15. Pending application, if any, is also dismissed.

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

DECEMBER 18, 2018

Natha Singh v. Sukhpal Singh .

Case Summary — RC.REV. 328/2018: Natha Singh v. Sukhpal Singh

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent's / Landlord's Contentions (as presented in the opinion)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Natha Singh v. Sukhpal Singh .

Comments