Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2582 (DEL)

KULDEEP AGGARWAL v. RAJ KUMAR CHOPRA

2017-07-28

VALMIKI J.MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. C.M. No.26547/2017 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.658/2017 and C.M. No.26546/2017 (stay) 2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the tenant, defendant in the suit, impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 9.6.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 3. The facts of the case are that the subject suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords against the appellant/defendant/tenant pleading that the appellant/defendant/tenant was a tenant of shop no. F2 and F3, First Floor, Plot No.19, MLU, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110045. The first registered lease deed entered into between the parties was dated 9.9.2002 for a monthly rent of Rs.33,000/-. The next registered lease deed between the parties was dated 27.12.2005 as per which the rate of rent became Rs.43,000/- per month and since the same was to be increased by 10% every year, the rate of rent became Rs.52,030/- per month w.e.f. 1.9.2007. The rate of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2014 was pleaded to be Rs.1,09,500/- per month and which was paid in the ratio of 1/3rd i.e. Rs.36,300/- to each of the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords. The last lease agreement was an unregistered lease agreement dated 15.9.2014 and as per which the rent is said to be paid till July, 2015. The respondents/plaintiffs/landlords terminated the tenancy of the appellant/defendant/tenant in terms of the notice dated 2.2.2017 and thereafter filed the subject suit. 4.(i) The appellant/defendant/tenant filed the written statement admitting to the execution of the earlier registered lease deeds dated 9.9.2002 and 27.12.2005. That the last rate of rent payable between the parties was Rs.1,09,500/- was however denied. The service of the legal notice sent by the respondent/plaintiff/landlords was not specifically denied hence has to be seen as received by the appellant/defendant/tenant. The only defence of the appellant/defendant/tenant was that the appellant/defendant/tenant had purchased the suit property from the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords. The consideration for purchase was pleaded to be Rs.30 lacs. The appellant/defendant/tenant pleaded to have paid an amount of Rs.31.50 lacs to the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords as stated in the written statement. The only defence of the appellant/defendant/tenant was that the appellant/defendant/tenant had purchased the suit property from the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords. The consideration for purchase was pleaded to be Rs.30 lacs. The appellant/defendant/tenant pleaded to have paid an amount of Rs.31.50 lacs to the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords as stated in the written statement. It is however noted that the amounts totaling to Rs.31.50 lacs given are alleged to be either in cash without any receipt and by means of cheques which were however dishonored i.e. amounts are not paid under the cheques. (ii) Also, and admittedly neither there is any registered sale deed in favour of the appellant/defendant/tenant nor any registered agreement to sell conveying any right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the appellant/defendant/tenant. For the sake of arguments, even assuming some consideration is paid, and which is denied by the respondents/defendants/landlords, ownership of an immovable property passes only because of a registered sale deed vide Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and even to take benefit of the doctrine of part performance w.e.f. 24.9.2001 when Act 48 of 2001 was brought in by the Legislature amending Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the agreement to sell has to be stamped and registered and admittedly there is not even an agreement to sell. Clearly therefore the defence of the appellant/defendant/tenant of his having purchased the property had no legs to stand upon because transfer of title in the property is by means of registered document and which admittedly did not exist and therefore by admitted fact no defence was made out before the trial court for not decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 5. It is therefore seen that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. The rate of rent being above Rs.3,500/- is admitted. The service of legal notice was not specifically denied and hence admitted, and in any case, the same is not necessary in Delhi in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 2011 (183) DLT 712 which holds that service of summons in the suit can be taken as a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6(i). It is high time that dishonest litigation in this country must be discouraged. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 2011 (183) DLT 712 which holds that service of summons in the suit can be taken as a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6(i). It is high time that dishonest litigation in this country must be discouraged. The present appeal and defence of the appellant/defendant/tenant before the trial court is completely dishonest and malicious to somehow or the other enable the appellant/defendant/tenant to illegally continue in possession of the suit premises. (ii) I cannot agree with the argument of the counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant that no case is made out under Order XII Rule 6 CPC inasmuch as once all the three ingredients of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, rate of rent being above Rs.3,500/- per month and notice terminating tenancy is served because it is not denied and also not necessary in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. (supra) the trial court was hence justified in decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defence of the appellant/defendant/tenant of having purchased the suit property was liable to be rejected in limine in view of the fact that there cannot be purchase of an immovable property or purchase of any right, title and interest in the property without registered documents in view of Sections 53A and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. Accordingly, this appeal being an abuse of process of law is dismissed with costs of Rs.2 lacs and which costs shall be paid by the appellant/defendant/tenant positively within three weeks from today with the website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in and receipt thereof be filed in this Court within one week thereafter. Registry will ensure that if receipt is not deposited then the matter will be listed in the Court for taking necessary action for non-deposit of costs.