RFA--569/2019. Case: DALIP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KUSHAL CHAND GARG & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | RFA--569/2019 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:-
+ RFA 569/2019 & C.M. No.28037/2019 (for stay)
DALIP KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Shesh Datt Sharma Ms.Shruti Sharma, Advs.
versus
KUSHAL CHAND GARG & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr.J.P.Gupta with Mr.Rikky Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
-
The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Procedure, 1908 has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi decreeing the suit possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff being Civil No.1634/2016.
-
Under the impugned judgment, the appellant/defendant been directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession suit premises situated at the property bearing no.3/130, Lalita Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi comprising of Shop no.4 on the floor along with a small portion of the first floor consisting of rooms, toilets, etc. admeasuring 110 sq. yards. The learned Court has further directed the appellant to pay mesne profits at the rate
of Rs.8,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2015 to 31.07.2016 with 15% annual enhancement thereon till vacant possession of the property is handed over to the respondent.
-
The appellant while working as a caretaker of M/s Jyoti Music Pvt Ltd. being run by one Mr.Puran Singh Kainth who was the erstwhile owner of the suit premises, was initially permitted to stay in a portion of the same without payment of any amount to the owner. Subsequently, when M/s Jyoti Music Pvt. Ltd. came to be wound up, the appellant requested Mr.Kainth to permit him to occupy the suit premises as a tenant and, accordingly, at the appellant’s request the suit premises was leased out to him for a period of 11 months vide lease deed dated 02.03.2010 at a monthly rent of Rs.3,600/-. The appellant accordingly paid rent to Mr.Kainth for a few months, whereafter he stopped paying any rent.
-
In these circumstances Mr.Kainth, vide a registered sale deed executed on 20.11.2014, sold the aforesaid property bearing no. 3/130, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi to a private charitable trust namely Shiv Shakti Sansthan (Regd.) for a consideration of Rs.48 lakh and an additional sum of Rs.10 lakh was paid towards furnitures, fixtures and fittings. At the time of the execution of the sale deed, the Trust was handed over the actual physical possession of the entire property, except the portion which was in the possession of the appellant pursuant to the lease deed dated 02.03.2010, even though he had stopped paying rent after July, 2010.
-
The Trust therefore requested the appellant to vacate the tenanted premises, which he refused to do and instead started claiming
ownership of the suit premises. Faced with the situation where appellant was not only continuing to stay in the suit premises paying rent but had also started misbehaving with the trustees, Trust on 05.03.2015, instituted the subject suit seeking a decree possession and mesne profits against the appellant.
-
Soon after filing of the suit, the Trust passed a resolution
25.03.2015 to the effect that all court cases, as also all documents be submitted in respect of the Trust, would be signed and filed name of its President, Vice President and General Secretary.
on this resolution, the respondents sought amendment of the substituting the aforesaid three office bearers as plaintiffs instead the Trust, which application came to be allowed by the trial vide its order dated 27.03.2015.
-
Before the trial Court, the appellant filed his written claiming therein that the suit was not properly valued and that market value of the same was more than Rs.1 crore. It was claimed that pursuant to an oral agreement to sell entered into with the erstwhile owner Mr.Kainth on 15.01.2000, the appellant was holding the suit premises as its rightful owner. It was further that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.8 lakh as part consideration to Mr.Kainth in cash by way of instalments. It further claimed that though Mr.Kainth had assured the appellant he will execute the sale deed in his favour, his intention had dishonest and, therefore, he had asked the appellant to sign papers in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shashtri Nagar which later learnt was a lease deed. It was, thus, contended that the
deed was the outcome of fraud played upon him and, therefore, was not enforceable.
-
Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 04.11.2015:-
“(i). Whether the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff without any cause of action ?
OPD
(ii) Whether the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit property as per the market valuation and has malafidely assessed the value of the suit ? OPD
(iv). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession ? OPP
(v). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits and damages as claimed in the suit ? OPP
(vi). Whether the defendant is owner of the suit property as claimed by the defendant ? OPD
(vii). Relief.”
-
...
To continue reading
Request your trial