Format of Entire SLP

. .
: '
'I ... ·
. . ..
· ; . . ·DECLARATION .
: .• ;. :· ;w 1 . • . . • •-• .•
All defects>'·
..
hav~ been·duly.cured.·Whatever has
. '
'.
. . been/ del.eted/modi.fied in the Petition is the
. ' : .
result.. of curing. of defects.· c;lnd nothing· else.
'
·Exc.ept_ curihg ··the de.fects.· Nothing has been

. '
' .
d·one.· Paper;·Book~ a·re complete in all respects •
. .
.,
.·
, ·.. Signature~
·: ·.. · ·,. Advocate-on~~ecord for;P-~titioner
-,
~
. :.
~
; j • '
il I
I
I
.. ~ · .. Date:
I,. .
02. ~ . 1.~ .·20.'2-3. · ·
i
l;:
; o o
.I ' '
;
i. · Contact No .. 1~ 1 O! 7 :.?;!"~0
il ~ . h
. i: . . .
;,: : l=
,•
0 j·::
i.
:1 •
:!
:.: .!~
::
: I
. I : .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ON I-B
.
CASE SCRUTINY:LIST OF DEFECTS
Total Defects 4
Diary No. 49646-2023
SUBHRA KABASI Vs RANJEET Advocate ARUP BANERJEE
Defects Defects Defects Defects
\
S.No. Defects notified notified Removed Removed
on by on by
Other (PARA 1 ANI)
AVINASH To be·
6 OF LISTING Ol-12-2023
1 KUMAR
PROFORMA TO BE 11:51:18 cured
YADAV
FILLED.)
Other (lA FOR AVINASH

01-12-2023 To be
)
KUMAR
·-·
'
IMPLEADMENT I
INDEX NOT FILED.)
:
11:51:18
YADAV
cured
Other ( COUNT ALL

PAPER BOOKS AND
AVINASH
WITH COPY OF 01-12-2023 KUMAR. To be
3 11:.51:18
DECLARATION TO cured
YADAV
PLACED IN ALL
PAPER BOOKS.)
Other (C/C OF I/0
NOT FILED. lA FOR
AVINA~H
EXEMPTION FROM 01-12-2023 1b be
4 KUMAR
FILING C/C OF 1/0 11:53:05. cured
YADAV
TO FILED
ALONGWITH C/F.)
..
\ Su:greme Court of India
'nv.mt
-~ Section 1-B
Limitation Renort- Generated on : 01-12-2023 11:52 am
Diary No.-49646-2023
! Cause Title : : SUBHRA KABASI Vs RANJEET
~ Date of Order: (A):··· ... i 08-11-2023

I
. ·- i·
'
! Date of Filing: (B) I 29-11-2023
I
Total Days : (C) = (B-A) . 21
: Copy Ready on : (D) ''
.. ·
• I
~opy Applied on : (E) , . ·

·... ~
. Total Days (D-E) : (F) .0
: Total Holidays :· (G) . i 0

-- . -~-- - --- . ~- --· ... :_--..1..--.- ---- - -~--- ... .!..
, limitation days : (H) : 90
• Total Days : [ C-(F+G+H)] -69
: Limitation ; PETITION HAS BEEN FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS
( Dealing Assistant)
\...__12-2023 11:52 am
(Branch Officer)
Page 'A'
. '
tv)\ ~/Vt \eo( . 7.
Not a Batch or similar matter
Annexure 'Y'
Advocate Check list to be certified by Advocate-on-Recor-d
rln~ ~._ SLP(C) has been filed In Form n_~~Ts-~h certificate~·----==·-J_yEs~=~=~
\j__wr. .2. The Petition is as per the provisions of Order XV Rule 1. ; v "jt~J 1
'/o.> i
- - - · - - - - - · - - - - - - - - 1..- - - - - - -.. ·-·-··--·"·1
3. The papers of SLP have been arranged as per Order XXI, ! v
Rule (3) (l) (f). . . ! ~
---··- - - _. __ -·- 1··-·----------1
Brief list of dates/events has been filed. . · ;· v 'ja> ;
1-5-_.·----1 Paragraphs and pages of paper books have been -numb-e.red r·------y·-----·;
consecutively and correctly nqted in index. : v t:t> i
6. . Pro . and required number of paper booksTl.+i)~havej·--~Y:---~
e~ f1l d.· . . · L 1
I ' •
w· ont n'ts of the petition, applications and accompanying.., -..9~-.-----i

documen are clear; }egible ·and typed in double space on i 1
one side o the paper. ~ b lt st'dL I 1
\ ' . .. . . . . __ ..:._____:___________ !....-·-·--·----------;
-~ partie Iars of the impugned judgment passed by. the
1
j - ~
\ court(s) be_! w are uniforr:nly written in all. the do.cu111ents. ; 'V 'i u
\"\ ~
g~~~~Q\af)te~~o-r'aR eal by certificate the a·ppeal is accomp·a-niedby··T·-------·-------1
1 1
o?;r-·l~t;,t~ C fi~em-and decree ·appealed fwrn and order granting i

1
\ Alo 1
\ S\1~" '_1 __........--rc-ertificate.. . :
~,,,.-·~. If the petition is time barred, applicat!o'r1''for'-co-ndoi1'~"tToii'~0Vii""-·N/;-·----""1
delay. mentioning the no. of days at---delay, with affidavit and 1
court fee has been filed. 1

I
I
..
I
11. The Annexures referred t m thepetition-·aretru·e~copiesofr--·-·---- -·--- --1

the documents before · e court(s) below and ·are filed in ' ~ o ~
chronological order per Ust of Dates. . i
1
. I ,
1--:---t--:--------.r-------------·----·-----!- .. -------···---..·-----·-!
12. · The. annexures eferred to in the petition are filed and 'i v i
indexed separ ely and not marked collectively. 1
'\.../ 1 (!.) I
'
- ---·-·-·--··-----..1-·-·------- ·----··-- .
, ' I
The relev · t provisions of the constituti.ons., statutes, YES i No ·

ordinanc s, rules, regulations, bye laws, orders etc. referred i
j to in the impugned judgme('lt/Qrder has been filed as ; 1
. Appendix to the SLP. , · .

htc- In SLP against the. order passed in secori-dAppeai~c~__;P.iesoTj-··-·~--~-;--'-'----..-)
1°
/·- . .
.
the orders· passed by the· Trial Court and First Appellate "v"
Court have been filed. . .· : •·
15. ·}he complete listing proforma· has been filed in, signed and · .,_, etJ
t: ·
1 I
I
I
rncluded m th·e paper ,books. · . ../ 1- ·
16: In a petition (PIL) fil~d under clause (d) of RL1Ie i2 (l),Orderi~ ... .,_
XXXVIII, the petitioners has disclosed: 1
I
'v 0
(a). his full name, complete postal address, e-mail address;
phone nu~ber, proof regarding personal identification. .
occupation and· annual income, PAN number' and National i ,
1
..._____,_.....,.U niqu~ identity__Carq_Q_lj_m b~iLlL~D.'L~ ..--..~-. --------- ......... ·------~-c--···""·· .. -~-----·--- .................... j
.
"'
·------·, ..-- .. ----·· .......... _!.. ___________ ----·--:-;---·-·---;::--·--:·:-----··-----:---r-----· r- ' .
-~·-
i (b) The. facts-constituting the cause O'f action;

I (c)"The nature of injury ~aused or likely to be caused to the
:public;
(d) The nature and extent of personal interest, if any, of the
petitioners(s).
(e) Details regarding and civil, criminal or revenue litigation,
1
1 involving the petitioners or any :of the petitioners, which has
! or could have a legal nexus with the issu~ (s) involved in the
I Public Interest Litigation.
~-----l--····· .. -·----------------------------------~--------~~---------1
17; 1 If any identical ma~ter is pending/disposed of by the Hon1 ble
I Supreme Court, the complete particulars of such ·matters f'-..f f !+-
have been given. . vo \_
18. The statement in terms of the Order ,XIX Rule. 3 (1) of •
Supreme Court ·Rules 2013 has been grven the. petition of in tvo .· "
appeal. • ..,.
19. Whether a Bank Draft of Rs. 50,000/- or 50°/o of the amount, ,
whichever is ·less, has been deposited·. by the person. No
intending to appeal~ if required to be paid as pe.r the order of
1 the NCDRC, in terms of Section 23 of the Consumer
i Protection Act, 1986. j
:........... ; .... ···--- . .
. 20. i In case of appeals under Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.. . N-o !I
i j the petitioners/appellant has moved before the Armed I
1 Forces .Tribunal for granting certificate for leave. I
! I to appeal to the Supreme Court. I
-·---·t'-------------------·-------------:------------:·--------+-·--·--------·-1
j21. l A!l the p2lper-books to be filed afte~ curing the d~fe9ts shall -./tJ>.
f-..
j ! be In o_rder. ~
_______,, ...... ..!.-... - .......... _.. ________ ··----------------·---------------·-------·-·------.L..---------
I rH:r·eby deC! are that r' ·,,a~~ personaU·y verified the petition and its contents ""
and it is in conformity with the Supreme Court Rules 201:?.
I certify that the above requirements of this Check List have been complied
with. I further certify that all the documents necessary for the. purpose of
hearing of the m~tt.~r have been filed ...
New Delhi : · FILED BY:-
Date: . j
V'\ i\~.2,., 'J..'}
AOR Code No .
•
.
- .. I \ . •. A f\'! 0 0 C0 0 8 55 09
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF [?ELHI
DA>TE~ 8! TIME :
.. ll
0
o
LOCAl't,ON:
o JJ.o
NAME::> OF THE A CCI REGISTERED USER :
0 0
e-Court Fee
o
0 0
o
o
0
o
0
a
o
o o
0
o
0
o o
0
o o
~
:
o o
0
29-NOV-2023 11:57:40
o o c
o SMCI,!... o
._. 0
SU:f'~~fi.:Jq, C
0
.
'' ""
o
'fOF INDIA
U
z r~.:·"''•
':'j.1,
tf/J.,,...Jt-Q
"·,..._o '
~,_.u.._
L
_. " '
""
o-
'f,..~
,
,
o ...,,,
~r> ~ 0 0
.fi~MJ:pF LITIGANT:
0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0
SUBH
0 c
KAcASI
,.(>
•
( .~.-.•.~...,._,..
) •
•· o o
" ......,,...._
....,
0 0
~-'QoURJ RECEIPT NO:
0
_.."
;· efl!t,;,
"~; •. )!
-
~o
~
o
0 0 0
,._'/
-···· .... )
_.t·
0
t.· ....~" S.f:t',<f. ., ~
~-E:OUi\"'"FEE AMOUNT: ~ 1930 : ~(.£' .:~ ~~ . o o ···••: /
0 0 0 0 ( l..!i.~ ... , • ~·
f.., 0 l
(Rupees One Thou~an9,'Nii]£t;~undred ~ <;;>nly) o ~~:

0
o o o :0 ,·· . / /
o c o o ·o . ~ ....~~.'.·~~/ ~4 o o..'d-..
c 0 r'• ,._{'i _'t "II> ;}o (I 0 f ~· ,l
0 0 ~~, ~ ~~· ·)
0
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilfilUII· -~- :·
0 0
.' .
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
DLCT2937K2357L297 . .,
0
0 0 0 0 0 J ' ) ~: ~t •:0
·,., ". ""' ~
0 0 0 .... J ,, t) ~ \)0 0 ~·. c '- 0.. 0 l.o" t. ·~ 0
uthentic;lty of tjll; e,-Court fae~rec~lpt sho~ld b~ verified at www.shcilestamp.:·com . cAAy.,Pisctep~ncy In ttia

0
Statutory AMh :The
~hl~;} re •
0
details on ipt
0
c ..,.
0
<~· n~o as'hv"allab~e
::
on ·tfte'\~eb~lfe
.. : e
fenders it ln~ali~. In case of any discr~parlcY'p%;s; i~ro~~l ~h: Co~p~t:nt
Authority. This receipt Is valid or;tly after verlflcatlon & locking by the Court Official.
..
VVarn_ing
·;hr: I o)l)i(~llic- :.f tlti~ C?l t:f!< .•lh: can!:~·· '/(~rified,and authenticated world-wide by any n'•'r,lb0'1''· d
the pllbltl' dt v:ww.s:hcilestamp.corn free of cost."
"A11y ,1iter;1ti"n> :•:· ~l~io; c0r\'tflc.1rt-" 1'(-'f'ltJ.-.:··; 1t invalid. Use of an clltered certificate without all th<: security
f~C<.;:w•,:·s Uil:k.l con·si;tl:t'~ d ;::rirntnill (1ff,,.nce."
l
Thi c. ·::-a ·: n ·. : n t r otrt c.dr ". sr:cu d ty f e.ltLI ·=) l.i k.~ ,_oloured L>ac kg round with Lacey ,..~eornetric Fl,~xible
;j.Jt let nJ "'.-.J S:.il)t\·~ L•J•jo ;nlt'l(j•:s, .-_:,,mpl~·)l omamental desion borders, Anti-copy feature~. the
-\pnc, ,,r0r•. •·· '·f ,. I' :·o· printi:·~r;. w.1t~~rP .. 1, k <•nd ntht't' Overt and Ctwert features."
. .
INDEX
81. Particulars of Document Page No. of :gart of Remarks

No. which it belongs
.. Part-! Part-II
.·
:···
.
..
(Contents (Contents
.· . of Paper of file
..
..
Book) alone)
.. I
.
(i) ! (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
1. CQURTFE~S :
2. Of:fice . ~ Report ·on A A

LiFitation
3. L~~ting Proforma .. Al-A2 A-A'2.
. .
4. Cover Page of Pap~r .A-·.~
Book I
.
5. Index of Record of A-e;
Proceedings
~. :
6. Limitation .-·.··Report I ,
..
prepared by the
:
Registry.
7. Defect List
I
8. Note .Sheet
9. .Synopsis and List of B:-H
'
·Dates
'
'
1 0. Certified Copy ~nd . .~
True copy of the 1.-1~

impugned final
judgment. and order
dated 08.11.2023
passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in RSA No.
208/2023
11. Relied Upon Judgment
and order dated
10~ 12.2007 passed by
this Hon'ble Ht:J}i
, Cotty(: ~b.!J;.u;,, Ne~_~el)J
o • I • o
No.5761 f2007
12. Relied Upon Judgment
and order
01,06.~012 passed by
.th~ Hon 'ble fk~ ~rtl eOtl Yt I
.. ·· ... .. ..
~
~-:·~+-p~a:J New Delhi in

RSA No.46/2012
13. Special Leave. Petition
with affidavit
14. ANNEXURE P·l ··
The copy of the
P~airit/ Civil Suit
No.l508 filed before
the Sr. Civil Judge_,
·~
'fr
Central Distt. Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi
dated 18.05.2018
15. ANNEXURE P-2
The copy of the written
statement fil~d before .
the Civil Judge
(Central}, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi dated
20.08.2018
16. ANNEXURE P-3
The copy of the
Application under
Order 12 Rule 6 of the
CPC filed by the
Respondent herein
before the Sr. Civil
Judge, Central Distt.,
\,...
' Tis Haza~i. qourts,
Delhi dated
13.11.2018
17. ANNEXURE P-4
Th~ ·Copy of the Reply
..
~~~:: applicat~on ur;td~r
·o:i:-.der XII Rule 6 of
CPC filed before the
Civil Judge (Central);
Tis·· Hazari Courts,
i
D~lhi ciated
04;05.2019
18. ANNEXURE-P-5
The copy of the order
dated 14.08.2019
passed by the Civil
I
Judge-06, Central
District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi in CS
SCJ No ..l508/2018
19. ANNEXURE P-6
The copy of the order
dated 04.12.2019
passed by : the Civil
Judge-06,, .Central
Courts, Delhi in CS
SCJ No.l508/2018
20. ANNEXURE p,..7
.The copy of the RCA
No.24/2023 filed by
the petitioner herein
.
before the Court of Ld.
District Judge,
Central Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi dated
04.03.2023
"\": .
21. ANNEXURE P-8
• I 'o
Tl;l.:e. · copy of the

: ,'• ..
· Ju4gment 10.10.2023 ·
:
pa$.sed by the Ld.

Additional ;District
Judge-03, Central
Co.urts, Delhi in RCA
N?.;24/2023
22. ANNEXURE P-9 lt!>(l .-2-l'i
Th.e copy of the R. S .A.
No.208/2023 filed by
I
the petitio,ner before

the Hon'ble High
.Court of Delhi at New
Delhi dated
02.11'.2023 ..
23. I.A. No. of2023
Applicat.io~ for
permission to file
additional do·c·m;nents
24. ANNEXURE P-10
True copy <;>f the Rent
Agreement dated 12th
day of December ..2015
along with connected
documents
- - --4---------j
25. ANNEXURE P-11
_.,.....-.,
..
l
True ~opy of the Letter ..

. .
..
dated 20.01.2023 sent . .
. .
to Police S.b::ttion, Civil .
..
·,
..
Lines, Timarpur, Delhi ..
26. ANNEXURE P-12 2-y &·--2.\i r

True copy of the Letter
No.L&DO /L-III/ 8 I
.. ..
3(40) /40. dated .
._16.05.20~3 sent to the
.
Sh. ·. Subhank ar
..
.. . .
I
Kabasi
27. F/M .·Z'1<6 ·~
28. Vakalatnama 2-L-f·1
2-'l· H.~ trl.O &i Va-r/1t0 ·.2..~0
l .
.:
I I
A
IN T~E St;PREME COURT OF.INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
. / ··,.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2023 ,/~:,~ ~

. . ,.- / .f
~/}'9,~· ·~
IN THE MATTER OF:
Subhra Kabasi ... Peti/tiet(~~
. /<: · · . .· .-. ("~. ~"
j:l·' · .
'<'.t#Y
~S0-> .... .
...•~-r,; \~ .~ \}; . ..
_.. <K ''- ~ ,... :· ~
Versus -.:.\ ···( ~~) ,. ; (~·:··>-'· · //
Ranjeet ... Red~DriQ.ent ~ .,<.:-:··
~"\ '\.. ,·· c·r···~ .
tr.... ·•• ~~,;.... 1t r·
'\.. '· .. "· <\~)\' ./,f/
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION , .;:~"·· _,
'·.
't.ji,
~.i} .• -··
•• '·
1. The petition is/are within time. '· ,.:
2. The petition is barred by time and there is. delay

'
of __ days in filing the same against · order
dated 08.11.2023 and petition for condonation
~ 0 •
of days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of days in refilling the
petition and petition for condonation of
_______days delay in refilling has· been
...,_
filed.
.. '•, I
BRANCH OFFICER
NEW DELHI
DATED: _._.2023 ·
'.
A-1
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SE.CTJON:
The case pertains to (Please tick/ check the correct box): ... :·
0 Central Act: (Title): N.A.

0 Section: N.A.
0 Central Rule : (Title): N.A.
0 Rule No(s): · N.A ...
0 State Act: (Titl~) Nil
0 Section: Nil
0 State Rule : (Title) Nil
0 Rule No(s): Nil
0 Impugned Interim Order: Nil
(Date) ...·.·
.. ,: '• _..;.,..\I .
. ·t··
0 Impugned Fmal Order/Decree: 08.11.2023 . <'•. · .~.._ .)
(Date) .
~"S-
·"~
0 High Court: (Name): Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at I'{~~~·-.
!'···
Delhi I:·'
0 Names of Judges : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam .- .;:: ·
·' ,_.
Singh Arora
0 Tribunal/Authority: (Name): NA
1. NATURE OF ,MATTERV21'"Civil Civil

o Criminal
~ 2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No. 1: Su bhra Kabasi
(b) E-mail ID: NA

~
I Mobile phone number: NA

3. (a) Respondent No. 1: Ranjeet
(b) E-mail1D: NA
I Mobile phone number: NA
4. (a) Main category 18
classification:
(b) Sub classification: 1807
A-2
""'; ¥J1<l
t•'lll.
Not to be listed before: NA
5.
a) Similar disposed of matter
··.~ Jth;br-m~tk.r~
6.
with citation, if any, and
otste>sal "P ·
case details:
b) Similar pending matter
with case details:
7. CRIMINAL MATTERS:
Whether Nil
(a)
accused/ convict has
su,rr'endered: o Yes o No
FIR No. Nil
(b)
Date.:.
Police Station: Nil
(c)
Sentence Awarded: Nil
(d)
Sentence Undergone: Nil
(e)
LAND ACQUISITION N/A
8.
~ATTERS:
Date of Section 4 Nil

(a)
~notification:·
(b)
notification:
(c)
notification:
.: TAX MATTERS: State the tax effect: NA
9. NA
10. · Special Category
i (first petitioner I appellant only):
o Senior citizen > 65 years o

. 'SC/ST
;:o Woman/ child o Disabled .
' . o Le.gal Aid case o In custody
NA
11. 'Vehicle Number
(in case of Motor Accident
',Claim matters):
~(t:[£-10
AOR for Petitioner
Dated:_._.2023 Registration No.
'
E-mail:
A ~3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVJ:L APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[S.C.R., Order XXI Rule 3(1) (a)]
(UNDER ARTICL:B 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF'INDIA) .;./~... '·,· · ,~-. . .
.. ~~:~,.',""<:~~:-~
SPECIAL LEAVE. PETITION (CIVIL) NO .. OF, 202 '\~~. .
~. ~..
' , .-~.,r· ' l
[Arising out of the · impugned finaL j'udgment/·~d ,,s·~ . .;~~7

order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Her?- b+~.··~~·i'gh .... "'\·~~-' . :.::::/ .. ~·
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No. 208/~'0~"3] · . ~~~;::::' <} /
•o,
. I -'. ....
. •,
.i'
IN THE MATTER OF: .. :· ·. ..

:~. \ /
I
:,,
Subhra Kabasi ... Petitioner

Versus ~.
Ranjeet ... Responclen t
PAPER BOOKS
I
i
I
[FOR INDEX:: KIN'DLY SEE INSIDE] f

~
,.
'
I
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: 1'·1 R.· !+ R,U P!JiiNB.t..-;J£ t:.
1.,
: .. :~
I.
INDEX
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Sl.No. Date of recbrd of · Pages
proceedings
... : .,
~~ :
.(
'
···.....
''---·
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
On 18.05.2018, Mr. Ranjeet, the Respondent, filed
civil suit in the court of Civil Judge-06, Tis Haza.ri I •
Courts against Sn1t. Subhra Kabasi, the Petitioner,

~
for possession, rnesne profits, and permanent
injunction of property situated at property bearing
no. 27, 1st floor,. Khyber Pass,. Civil Lines, Delhi.
·--- Ranjeet claims co-ownership \Vith his mother namely
Saroj and assert~ that Subhra Kabasi was his tenant
un.der a rent agreement dated 12.12·.201~,· renewed

..
until 05.11.2016. Subhra ·Kabasi allegedly defaulted
on rent. from March 2016. It -vvas further averred in
the plaint that the plaintiff extended 'the tenancy till

I
. .
05.02.2017 due to the illness of Subhra Kabasi's
husband. Despite a legal notice on 07.10.2016 and a
reply terminating the tenancy on 13.10.2016, Subhra
Kabasi allegedly:failed to vacate the prop.erty ..
On 20.08.2018, Subhra Kabasi filed a: written
statement, challenging Ranjeet's title and presenting.
a letter from the Defence Estate Office suggesting

Central Governrnent ownership of the land. She
denied. receiving the termination notice and raised
objections in h~r statement.
On ~3.11.2018, Ranjeet filed an application
under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, and on

~ .
04.05.2019, Subhra Kabasi replied. The trial court
ruled in favor of Ranjeet on 14.08.2019. Subhra
K.abasi sougl:Lt to recall the order on 04.12.2019, but
the application was dis1nissed.
Subh1:a Kabasi, aggrieved by the judgment and
decree of 14.08.2019, filed a first appeal on
04.03.2019, which Vilas disn1issed on 10.10.2023.
She ·then fi~e.d a second appeaL. .on 02.11.2023,
.. c:l;allenging the ··.High. Court's · d·ecisjon dated
08.11.2023. The High Court confirtnecl the trial
court's decree but did not address the substantial
ques.tiq.n of law as to whether unauthorized

... ·
· occv.pC\,nts have the right to enter into rent
agreements for governn1ent-owned land. The High

D
Court further imposed stringent conditions for stay
of execution, leading to disagreement. Hence, the
present petition to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
seeking setting: aside of the judgment·; .dated
08.11.2023 ernphasizing the alleged fa.ilure<of the

I
High Court to address the substantial legal question
and disagreement with the conditions for the stay of. I •
execution.
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

18.05.2018 Plaintiff herein the Respondent filed
.
.the suit for possess~or1., permanent
injunction ancr mesne profits. against
the defendant herein the appellant.
The copy of the Plai11:t/ Civil Suit
No.1508 filed before the Sr. Civil
Judge, Central Distt. Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi dated 18.05.2018 is
annexed as . ANNEXURE P-1
[Pgs. :f'C;- _q 6 ].
20.08.2018 Defendant herein the Petitioner filed
the -vvritten statement along with
documents;. The copy of ·the written
· ·st.aternen t il.led b'~for·e tlie Civil Judge
(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
dated 20.08.2018 is annexed as
ANNEXURE P-2 [Pgs. ~:{- t.f6:~ ].
13.11.2018 Application under Order 12 Rule 6 of
. ' the· CPC illed by the plaintiff the
respondent no. 2. The copy of the
, Application under Order 12 Rule 6 of
the CPC filed by the Respondent
herein before the Sr. Civil Judge, A
\
Central Distt., Tis Hazari Courts,
. '
Delhi dated 13.11.2018 is annexed as
ANNE:KURE P-3 [Pgs.f6~-i~y ].
04.05.2019 Defendant herein the Petitioner filed
the reply or the application under
Order 12 Ru.le 6 of the CPC. The copy
of the Reply on application under
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC filed ·before

p
the Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi elated 04.05.2019 is
annexed as ANNJ8;XURE P-·4
[Pgs. 14 .r-1 S""~_].
Ld. Trial Court disposed

. of the
14.08.2019
application under Order 12 Rule 6 of
~ the CPC decided in favor of the
plaintiff herein the respondent no. 2

. '
~\ on 14.08.2019. The copy ofthe·order . "
dated 14.08.20 19· passed by the Civil
Judge-06, Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi ln cs SCJ
No.l508/2018 lS annexed · as
ANNEXURE P-5 [Pgs. l t;o'""' I r, 3 ].
04.12.2019 Petitioner filed 'the application under
Section 151 or CPC re,calling of order
dated 14.08.2019 and the said
application was dismissed vide Order
dated 04.12.2019. The copy of the
order dated 04.12.2019 passeq by the
Civil Judge-06, Central District, Tis
..
. ·. .
Fiazari Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ
No.1508/2018 1s annexed as
ANNEXURE PM6 [Pgs.lG~-lG:.t ].
04.03.2023 Petitioner filed the \first appeal
against the Judgment and Decree
dated 14.08.2019. The copy of the
RCA · No.24/2023 Bled by the
petitioner herein before the Court of
Lei. District Judge, Central Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi dated OL! .03.2023 is
annexed as ANNEXURE P-7
[Pgs. l6~~ l ::f b ].
10.10.2023 Appeal of the Petitioner was \~

......
.' .. '
dismissed vide Judgment dated
10.10.2023. The copy of the
judgtnent 10.10.2023 pas.sed by the

·· ..
. Ld. Additional ·District Judge-03,
Central District Tis Hazari Courts,

7
Delhi in RCA No.24./2023 is annexed
as ANNEXURE P-8 [Pgs. L':f-':t -l '1. 0 ] .

H I '
02.11.2023 Petitioner filed the second appeal
against the impugned judgrnent
dated 10:10.2023. The copy· of the
R.S.A. No.208 /2023 filed by the
petitioner before the Holj 1)le High
Court of Delhi at Ne\v Delhi: dated
02.11.2023 IS annexed as
ANNEXURE P-9 [JPgs. IC[ f..- 2-11 .].
08.11.2023 Appeal of the Petitione"r vvas
· dismissed vide iinpugned ju_dgment
dated 08.11.2023.
.11.2023: Hence, the present · Special Leave
Petitio·n.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08.11.2023
+ RSA 208/2023, CM APPL. 57969/2023 & CM APPL. 57970/2023

SUBHRA KABASI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Parikshit Mandai, Advocate.
versus
RANJEET ..... Respondent
Through: None. ·
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRIT AM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

CM APPL. 57970/2023 .·
1. This is an application filed by Appellan~. seeking a stay of the
execution proceedings in execution petition bearing no. 470/2020 pending
before the Civil Judge - 06, Central District, Tis Hazari Court ('Executing
Court').
. .
'-- 2. The Trial ~ourt vide judgement dated 14.08.2019 has passed a decree
of possession in favour of the Respondent after retumi.ng a finding that there
· exists a relationship of landlord and ten:ant between the parties which stands
validly tenninated. The Appellate Court vide judgement dated 10.10.2023
has upheld the order of the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the last rent was paid in
~~~~~2~t 2019 and since t~1en,, .no fiuther' amount towards the use and
S•cnincD.!')C"p.11.2023 • charges, has been pat'd to tl1e Respon dent..
15:2o:o2lJtiCUpatlon ·
4. As per the averments made in the plaint, admittedly, the property i.e.,
D1g!talty Sfgn Data Page 1 of9

RSA 208/2023 CertifJe to be rue Copy
'.
·1$.
House No 27, pt Floor, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 ('suit

premises') was let out to the Appellant herein at Rs. 5000/- per month.
During the o~·al arguments it was admitted that for the period September
2019 to Nov:ember 2023. Thus, the rent for 51 months remains outstanding
and as on today a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- is due and payable by the Appellant
herein.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant does not
have the financial wherewithal to pay the outstanding arrears of rent.
6. It has been enquired if the Appellant is ready to peacefully vacate 1'
suit premises within reasonable period of time in view of the concun·ent
judgments of the Courts below passing a decree of possession in favour of
the Responde1~t.
, 6.1. The Appellant on instructions from Appellant's daughter, who is
present in' the C~urt; states that the Appella~t is unwilling to vacate the suit
premises.
7. In view of the admitted financial inability of the Appellant to pay the
arrear~ o.f rent and to pay current use and occupation charges, grant of stay
~ould be inequitable in the facts of th.is c~se ~s the balance of convenience
. . '• . .
•, \
. i~ ~ot in favour of the Appellant.
8. ·~: Accordingly, this application is dismissed and the Executing Court is
at liberty to procee~ with th~ execution of the decree of possession.
RSA 208/2023
9. i Learned counsel for the Appellant states that smce the interim
siynnn~·No'·retttion has been dismissed, the
lllg\lally ,, c : ·
appeal itself be heard and
•
adjudicated
By:RASH }..BAS
S•snin" ~'!/.:17; 11.2023 ·
IS:l0:02up0n, '·,
10!' The second appeal has been filed impugning the judgement and
RSA 208/2023 Page 2 of9

decree 10.10.2023 passed by Additional District Judge-03, Central District,
'Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in RCA No. 24 of2023·tided as Subhra Kabasi v.
. Ranjeet ('First Appell,ate Court') whereby the First Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal anl:l upheld the order and part decree of the Trial Court
passed by the Civil Judge- 06, Central Dis~rict, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in
favour of the Respondent vide order dated 14.08.2019 in CS SCJ
no.1508/20 18 ('Trial Court').
11. The Appellant is the original Defendant and the Respondent is the
original Plaintiff in the civil suit.
11.1. The suit was filed by the original Plaintiff for seeking recovery of the
possession of the: suit premises and for recovery· of money and future mesne
profits and for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from selling,
alienating, gifting, mortgaging; parting .with possession·(full or part) or from
creating any third-party interest in respect of the suit premises.
12. For the ease of reference, the parties to the pre~ent ~ppeal are referred
according ~o their
. o,riginal status b~fore the Trial Coud . .. ·
13. Tl~e Plaintiff filed the suit in his capacity as tl~e· owner and landlord of
the suit premises. As avened in the plaint that .the Plaintiff let out the suit
premises to the Defendant initially for 11 months commencing from
06.12.2015 to 5.11.2016 vide rent agreement dated 12.12.2015. However, as
per the Plaintiff,. the Defendant· defaulted .in payments of rent from April,
'
2016 in breach .of her obligations. The PlaiD:tiff has pleaded receipt of a legal
notice dated 07.10.2016 from the Defendant offering ':to pay rent for the
:~:::,',~~\Y1thd of October, 2016 and has pleaded that the Plaintiff issued a reply
Dy:RASHJ.r;fADAS
~;~2~~n20c'filte"d 13 .1 0.2016 to the said legal notice tenninating the tenancy w.e.f.
23
05.02.2017 and calling upon the Defendant to pay anears of rent from
RSA 208/2023 Page 3 of9
Examiner cial Department

High Court of Delhi
Authorized Under Section 70 of
Indian Evidence Act
:2023:DHC:8250
October, 2016.
13.1 :. Th~reafter for the reason that the Defendant not only failed to reply on
the said notice dated 13.10.2016 but as also failed to vacate the suit premises
or pay an-ears of rent and mesne profits, the Plaintiff was therefore
constrained to file the afore.sai~ civil suit.
14. The Defendant filed her written statement and categorically admitted
'
the relationship of landlord and tenant. The execution of the rent agreement
dated 06.01.2015 for letting out the suit premises at Rs. 5,000/- per month
was admitted. The Defendant admitted tendering the rent to the father a '
mother of the plaintiff. The Defendant however, disputed that there was any
default in payment of rent and pleaded that the rent has been tendered
. '
regu,larly and periodically. The Defendant stated that she continues to pay
·rent to the Plaintiff. The Defendant. filed on record money order receipts to
show payment ofRs. 5,000/- per month ..
14.1. 'J'he Defe~da~t, however, disputed exec~tion of the copy of the rent
agreement filed with the plaint and also disputed receipt of the legal notice
dated 13.10.2016 pleaded by the Plaintiff.
14.2. It was further pleaded that the suit premises belongs to the Central
~ . \
Government and for this purpose, she relied upon a letter dat'ed 26.04.L0 18
issued by Defence Estates Officer dated 26.04.2018.
15. Thereafter, with its replication to the written statement, an application
under Order·XII.Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC') was filed on
behalf of the Plaintiff on account of unequivocal admission of relationship
~~:~:~~~~Y,!l'atldlord and tenant in the written statement.
Dy:RASH~Dt\S
1 2
~;~~~~~NP1J:6': 1. mln view of the rival claims of the parties, the Trial Court after perusing
the pleadings and documentary evidence filed by the parties partly decreed
R'SA 208/2023 Puge 4 oC9

the suit of the Plaintff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and thereafter
directed the Def~ndant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of
the suit premises to the Plaintiff within three (3) months from the said order
dated 14.08.2019.
16.1. Further an application under section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf
of the Defendant for recalling of the order dated 14.08.2019. The said
application was dismissed by the Trial Court after recording that the grounds
raised in the application goes into the merits of the order and therefore it
ca1mot be considered under ~n application for review.
17. The First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 10.10.2023
observed that it does not find any reason to interfere with the order and
decree dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Trial C?omi and upheld its findings.
18. The keY. facts relied on and findings returned by the Trial Court as
we~l as the First Appellate Court to reach to the above said concurrent
conclusion reads as under:
a. That the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is of
landlord and tenant, which has been unambiguously admitted by the
Defendant in her written statement.
b. The admitted rent of the suit premises is Rs. 5,000/- per month and
therefore, it is not pr~tected.by the Deil~i R~nt Control Act, 1958.
c. The tenancy stands tenninated by notice dated 13.10.2016. In
alternative, the tenancy stands tenninated with the. service of summons in
this suit seeking recovery of possession. For this proposition, the First
:::~;~~~:.~~"' ~tlate Court relied upon the judgment o~ ~upreme Comi in Nopani
lly:RASHr;~l ABAS
~~~~~~8PJ· vestments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Santokh Singh (HUF); 2008 Vo/2 SCC 728 and
the judgment of this Court in Cement Corporation India Ltd. vs. Bharat
'
Digitally Signed Dl'ta
Certif~ed ~'be ;rue Copy , PageS or9
Examiner Jud~! Dcpar:tmant

High court of Delhi
Authori·zed Under Section 70 of
\ndian Evidence ~ct
Bhushan Sehgal, RSA No. 46/2012.
d. The objection raised by the Defendant with respect to the title of
Plaintiff to the suit premises is barred in view of section 116 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
19. In this second appeal, leamed counsel for the Appellant has not
disputed the findings of the Courts below with respect to existence of
relationship of landlord-tenant and the termination of the tenancy. Even
before this Court, the Defendant has not disputed that she was inducted in
, the suit premises as a tenant by the Plaintiff.
20: The' sole. contention of leai11ed c~unsei for the Appellant is that since
the title of the suit premises vests as a Custodian property belonging to
Ministry of Defence; and therefore, the Respondent herein, who though is
admitt~d~y the landlord, is no.t. entitled to .recover possession of the suit
. . .
p~erpises. However, in the opinion of this. Court, the Appellate Court has
.
CCHT:ectly dealt' with this' issue raised by.' the 'Appellant in paragraph nos. 13 &
14 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:
"13. During the arguments in the appeal, it is contended by counsel for
the appellantthat the respondent is not the owner of the suit premises but
it is owned by the Government. The said argument seems to he baseless.
in view of the contents of the written statement wherein, as discussed\
above, tlte lessor-lessee r·elationsltip between the patties is clearlv
admitted.
14. Even otherwise, under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, a tenant of immovable property; shall during the continuance of
the tenancy, be permitted to denv that the landlord of such tenant had,
at the beginning o(the tenancv, a title to such immovable propertv."
(Emphasis Supplied)
~::~:,',~??(~vermetn view of the provision of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,
By:RMi~nAS
f;g£!~Nzoitg72~ the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the Appellant i.e., the
3
'
Digitally Signed Data

Ccrtifitd to ~True Copy
RSA ·Page 6 of9
Examine~iai·Department
High Court of Delhi
Authorized Under Section 70 of
Indian Evidence Act
2023: DHC: 8250
tenant is estopped from challenging the titl~ of the landlord in view of the
said provision. Hence the same objection raised by the Appellant even
before this Court is without any substance and does not .give rise to any
triable issue.
22. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi,
'2008 SCC OnLine Del 1187 held that a tenant· who denies the title of the
landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent acts dishonestly and
._ the challenge to the ownership does not give rise to a triable issue. The
operative portion to this aspect reads as und~r:
" ........ Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a
tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only afier vacating the
premises and not when he is occupving- the premises. In fact, such a tenant
who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is
paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in
the order of learned ARC in this respect. As far as letting pwpose is
concerned, in view of the judgment of Han 'ble Supre,.iie Court in Satyawati
Sharma (dead by LRs. v. U.O.I., (2008) 5 SCC 287, this ground is not
available to the petitioner. "
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. This Court find no infirmity in the said finding of Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court.
24. This Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law has
arisen for consideration in the present appeal. The arguments raised by the
Appellant ~o ~ot r~ise any question of law .much less :a :substantial question
of law and the grounds merely challenge the finding offacts.
. . .
25. In this' regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the case of Nazir
Mohamed v. J. Kamal and others (2020) 19 SCC 57 wherein the Supreme
!:~:~~~~~,fft"'bbserved that second appeal only lies on a substantial question of law
Dy:RASH ADAS
~~~~mg20a ·cf' the

21
party ~a~not agitate facts .or call upon the High Court to re-
appreciate the .evidence in a second appeal .. The operativ'e portion to this
RSA Page 7 of9

aspect reads as under:
"22. A second appeal, or for that matte1; any appeal is not a matter of
right. the ,right of appeal is coriferred by statute. A second appeal only
lies on a substantial question of law. If statute confers a limited right of
appeal, the court cannot expand the scope of the appeal. It was not open
to the respondent-plaintiff to reagitate (acts or to call upon the High
Court to reanalyse or reappreciate evidence in a second appeal.
23. Section 100 CPC, as amended, restricts the right ofsecond appeal, to
Oi1Jy thos.e .cases, where a substantial question of law is involved. The
existence of a "substantial question of law" is the sine qua non for the
exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 1OQ Cr.
'XXX . XXX XXX
28. To be "substantial", a question of law must be debatable, not
previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and
must have a material bearing on the decision of the case and/or the
rights of~h~ parties before it, !f ~nswered eitl1er way.
29. To be a question o(law "involved in the case, there must be first, a

foundation (or it laid in the pleadings, and the question should emerge
(rom the sustainable findings of (act, arrived at by courts of (acts, and
it must be necessary to decide that question oflaw [or a just and proper
decision o(the case."
(E1nphasis supplied)
26. This second appeal is accordingly dismissed an~ the order of the First
Appellate Court is upheld.
27. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
'. \
28. It is needless to say that the decree of possession passed in favu .... ~ of
the Respondent, is a decree which is binding inter-se the pmiies and in no
mam1er effects the rights, if any, of the Custodian/Central Govemment qua
the suit premises, which will be decided in the appropriate proceedings, if
any, initiated by the Custodian/Central Goven1ment.
Signnlu/"Cf~1lVeritied
Digila\l)•~c
By:RASH I ABAS
~~g~~,"llf'r:.P-'L2o2J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
Digitally Signed Data

Certified to be True Copy
RSA 208/202 Page 8 of9
Examiner Jud i Department
H!gh Co rt of Delhi
Authorized Under Section 70 o:
Indian Evidence Act
NOVEMB~R 8, 20'),3/akc/ms
Click here to check corrigendum, i[anv
Signalu~Vcrificd
Dlsloall)"'ftuJe
Dy:RASH ADAS
~~~£~~g Daf!j7.11.2023
2
Page9of9
RSA 208/2023
IMPUGNED JUDGIVIl~N1~

Date of decision: 08.11.2023
RSA 208/2023, CM APPL.

.
57969/2023
.
&. CM
. APPL. ..
57970/2023
SUBHRA KABAST ... Appellant
. . . .
Through: Mr. Parikshit JVIandal, Advocate.
Versus
- I
RANJEET .... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET Pl:ZITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGlVlENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH AI<.ORA, J (ORAL): .
.CM APPL. 57970/2023
1. This is an application filed by Appellant seeking
a stay of the execution proceedings in execution
petition bearing no. 470/,2020 pending before the
Civil Judge- 06, Central District, Tis Haza:d Court
('Executing. Co:urt'..)..
2. The· Trial Court vide judgenl:ent dated
14.08.2019 has passed a decree of possession in
favour of the Respondent after returning a1 finding

that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties which stands validly terminated.
The Appellate Court vide judgerncnt dated
1.0.10.2023 has upheld the order of the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that

. '
the last rent was paid in AiJ.gU.st 2019. and since then,
no further· a1nount towards the use and occupation
charges·, lias been paid to the Respondent.
4. As per the avt:nnents n1ade in the plaint,
admittedly, the property i.e., House No 27, 1st Floor,
Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 ('suit
prernises l \:vas let <TU.:t to the i\ppcllant herein at Rs.
5000/- per n1onth. During the oral argurnents it was
admitted that for the period Septe1nber 2019 to
Noven1.ber ·2023. 'fhus, the rent for 51 months
ren1r.1ins outstanding and as on today a sun1 of Rs.
is due .a.nd. payable by the Appellant
b.erein.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that
the Appellant does not have the financial wherewithal
to pay the ~utstan.ding arre~rs of rent.

0
6. It has been :enquired if the Appellant is r~ady to
peacefully vacate the suit prernises within reasbn.able
period of tin1.e in view of the conc1.trrent judgrnents of
the Courts below passing a decree of possession in
favour of the Resp<::mdent.
6.1. The Appellant on i1~1structions fronT ·Appellant's·
daughter, who is present in the Co·urt, states that the
Appellant is unwilHng to vacate the suit pre1nises .

.
7. In view of .the adn1ittcd flnancia.~ ipability of the
Appellant to pay the arrears of rent and to pay
current use and occupation ~harges, grant o.f stay

1
would be inequitable in the facts of this cas e as the
r .
i
balance of convenience is not in favour of the
Appellant.
8. Accordingly, this application .is <,:lisrnissed and
the Executing 'Court is at liberty to proceed with the
execution of the decree of possessiqn.
RSA 208/2023
9. Learned c,ounsel for the Appellant" st:ates that
since the interirn application has been dismissed, the

. .
appeal itself be heard and adjudicated upon.
I •
10. The second appeal has been filed impugning the
judgement and decree 10.10.2023 passed by
A.ddi~ional Dis.t,ric.t. Ju.dge-0;3, Central District, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi in RCA No. 24 of 2023 titled as
Subhra Kabasi v. Ranjeet ('First Appellate Court')
vvhereby. the First Appellate Court dismissed the
. appe~fand
... :
upheld the order and p~rt decree of the
..
Trial Court passed by the Civil Judge- 06, Central
District, Tis Haz~ri Court, Delhi i.n favour of the
Respo'ndent vide order dated 14.08.2019 1n CS SCJ
no.l508/~018 ('Trial Court'-).
11. The Appellant. is the original Defendant and the
Respondent is the original Plaintiff in the civil suit.
11..1. The sui~ was filed by the original Plaintiff for
seeking recovery of the possession of the suit
premises and for recovery of money and future mesne
proHts and' for pe1~petual injunction restraining· the
Defendant fro1n selling, alienating, gifting,
n1ortgaging, parting with possession (full or part) or
from creating any ·third-party interest in respect of
the suit prernises.

12. For the ease of referen~e, the parties to the
present appeal are referred according to thei11 original
status before the Trial Court
13. The Plaintiff filed the suit in his capacity as the
owner and la.ndlord of the suit premises. As averred

. . '
in the plaint that the Plaintiff let out the suit prerr1ises
to the Defendant initially f\)r 11 lllOI~t1,1S commencing
from 06.12.2015 to 5.11.2016 vide rent agreernent
dated 12.12.2015. However, as per the Plaintiff, the
Defendant defaulted in payn1ents of rent from April,
2016 iri breach of het obligations. The ·Plaintiff has
pleaded receipt of a legal notice dated 07.10.2016
from the Defendant offering to p8y rent for the n1onth I •
of October, 2016 and has pleaded that the Plaintiff

.. ;·
issued a reply dated 13.10.2016 to the said legal
notice terminating the tenancy v;.e.f. 05.02.2617 and
calling upon the Defendant to pay arrears of rent
from October, 2016.
13.1. Thereafter for the n~ason i:hat the Defendant
not only failed to reply on the said notice . dated

'.
13.10.2016. but as also failed tO: vacate· 'the suit
prem1ses. ar pay arrears of rent and n1esne profits,
. I
the Plaintiff was therefore consttained to file the
aforesaid civil suit.
14. The Defendant fi.led her· written ·statement and
categorically adn1itted the relationship of landlord
and tenant. The execution of the rent agreement
dated 06.01.2015 for letting out the suit premises at
Rs. 5,000 I- per month was admitted. The Defendant
adn1itted tendering the rent to the father and m.other
of the plaintiff. The Defendant however, disputed that
there was any default in pay1nent of rent and pleaded
that the rent has been tendered regularly and
periodically. The Defendant stated that she continues
to pay rent to the Pla.intiff. The Defendant .filed on
record· money order receipts to show payment of Rs.
5,000/-- per montb.
14.1." The Defenda~t, h·ov'Tever, disputed execution of
the copy of the rent agreem.ent filed with the plaint
. and also. ~Usputed receipt of the legal n?tice dated
1.3.10.;;2016 pleaded by the Plaint~ff. :

14.2. It was further pleaded that the suit prerr1ises
belongs to the Central Governn1ent and for this
purpose, she rel~ed upon a letter dated 26.04.2018
issued by Defence Estates Officer dated 26.04~2018.
15. Thereafter, with its replication to the written
statement, an application under Order XII Rule 6 of

. ·. .
Civil Procedure·Code, 1908 ('CPC') was filed ori. behalf
t . • 0
of the Plaintiff on account of unequivocal' athnission.
of relationship of landlord and tenant in the written
statement. I •
16. In view of tJ:e rival claims of the pa,rties, the Trial
Court after perusing the pleadings and documentary
evidence filed by the parties partly decreed the ~uit of
the Plaintff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and
thereafter directed the Defendant to handover the
vacant and peaceful possession of the suit pren1ises
to the Plaintiff within three (3) n1onths from the said
order dated 14.08.2019.
16 .1 .. Further an application under section 151 of
.CPC was fileQ. on behalf of the Defendant for recalling
of the order dated 14.08.2019. The said application

·~
·wa.s disn1issed· by the Trial Court after recording that
the grounds raised in the application goes into the
merits of the order and therefore it cannot be
cons.id~red
. under an application
. for review.
.
17. · . The First Appellate Court vide impugned
judgrnent dated 10.10.2023 observed that it does not

'
:find apy reason to interfere with the order and decree

.:
dated· 14.08.2019 passed by the: Trial Court and
upheld its. findings.
18. Th~! key fc-1cts n~iied on and findings returned by
the Trial Court as vvell a;:; t)]e First Appellate Court to
reach to the al~ove said concurrent conclusion reads
"::S
c. l"-ld,:.-·
.11 -:...1 .
'
a.. That the relationship be.t"iNeen the Plaintiff and
the Defendant is of landlord and tenant, which
h~s been unarnbiguously admitted by the
Defendant in her written statement.
b. The adrnitted' rent of the suit prem.ises lS Rs.
· '5,000 /-- pe:t n1.ont.h. and therefore, it is not
protected by the Delbi I~ent Control Act, 1958.

c. The tenancy stands terrninated .by notice dated
13.10.2016. In alternative, the tenancy stands
terminated with the service of summons in this
suit seeking recovery of posses~ion. For this
propositio'n, the First Appellate Court relied
upon the judgment of Suprerne Court in N6pani
Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Santokh Singh (HUF);
2008 Vol 2 SCC

.
728 and the judgrhent of. this
Court· in Cement Corporation India·· Ltd. vs.

. . .
Bharat Bhusha.n Sehgal, I~SA No. 46/2012.
d. The objection raised by the Defend9-nt with
respect to the title of Plaintiff to .the suit

. ..
prernises is barred in view of section 116 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
19. In this second appeal, learned .counsel for the
Appellant has not disputed the findings of the Courts
below with respect to existence of relationship of
landlord-tenant and the termination of tl~e tenancy.

..
Even before th~s Court, the Defendant ha·s not
I
disputed that she was inducted in the suit premises
as a tenant by the Plaintiff.

,. .,.. ~~h
-~. ;·:~
fO r
,:···
20: The sole c·ontention of learned counsel for the
Appellant is that s-ince the title of the suit premises
vests as a Custodian property_ belo~ging to Ministry
of Defence; and therefore, the Re-spondent herein,

. '
who though is adrnittedly the landlord, \is not entitled
to recover possession of the suit pren1ises. However,
in the opinio~ of this Court, tl1e Appellate Court has
correctly dealt with this issue raised by the Appellant

,- 0
14 of the irnpugned
1n paragra.ph nos. 1 ,) (.).'",
j"udgrr1ent, which reads as under:
" l ,;'.{ . .Dunng

. t.11.e. argu1nents 111
. t 11.e appea1, 1t
. J.s
.
.. n1··
C "'"o1·1rl
- .. ll.v .. er
1 1T'' ,...,.1ll
~....1 l.v \ ' _.t•. l -=·
''~·e 't fpl-
.. .11 th r-~ c.1.'-" }_)rJPllant
.... ,. L.. \.... t'..1·1a· t t 1J.-le
.
.. ,..,_ 1 , ... A:, ...

.rc,:,ponof.lH . .-, (··t~t
ll,) •.)\vner o··fJ...h\('\'
u1C•r~"'·:;). it (.:\ •t....._ \
t c ...,u~ prcHlbCS
but it i~,· O\Vncd bv the Government. The said

.J
a.rgt1n1ent sccrns to be baseless in view of the
cdntents of the written staten1ent wherein, as
discussed above, the lessor-lessee relationship
btetween the patties is clearlY' admit'ted.
14. Even otheniV'ise, under Section 116 of the
Inr.lian Evidence Act, 1872, a tenant of ; .
immovable property, shall during the

t'
continuance of the tenancy, be perrnitted to
deny that the landlord of such .tenant had, at
the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such
immovable property.:~
(En1phasis Supplied)
21. In view of the provision of Section 116; of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Fi;rst Appellate Court

I .
has rightly held that the Appellant i.e., the t~nant is
estopped from ~ha)lenging the. title of the landlord in·
view of the said provision. Hence the sarr_1e. objection
raised by the Appellant even before this Court is
without any substance and does not give rise to any
triable issue.
22. A Coordinate Bench of this Court 111 Ra:n1esh

1
Chand v. Ugantl Devi, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1187
held that a tenant 1.vho denies the title of the landlord,
qua the prernises, to 'Vvhom he is paying rent acts
dishonestly and the challenge to the ownership does
not give rise to a triable issue. The operative portion
to this aspect reads as under:
. .
" ..... 'l'Section 116 of .the Evidence. Act creates
0 • • •
: ~stoppels again~t such a t~pa~1t. A tenant can
· ·c.hallenge the title of landlord only after vacating
the prernises. and

. npt ·when he is occupying the
premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the
!
title of the landlord, qua the p;n:rnises, to whom
J::.e is paying rcnL ac~s dishonestly. I, therefore,

find that there was no in:fi.rrnity
'• - in the order of
learned AI~C in this -respect. As far as letting
p·urpose ~s concerned, in vievv of the judg1nent
of Hon'ble Supren1e Court in Satyawati Sharma .
(dead by LRs. V. U.O.L, {2008) 5 sec 287, this
ground is not available to the petitioner." _..,

I
(Ernphasis Supplied)
2.3. This Court . find

. . .
no infirn1ity . in. the said finding
of Trial Gourt and the ~·irst Appellate Court.
' .
24. This Court is of the opinion that no substantial
question of law ~1as arisen for consideration in the
present appeal. The argurnents raised by the
Appellant do r.1ot .tTtise <:-1ny question of law n1uch less

1.3
a substantial question ·of law and the grounds. n1crely
challenge the fincUng of facts.
25. In this regard, it would be appropr-iate to refer
to the case of Nazir l\1oharned v . .J. }Carnal and others
(2020) 19 SCC 57 ·wherein the Suprerne Court
observed that second appeal only 1ies on a
substantial question of lavv' and the party cannot
agitate facts or call upon the High Court to re-·
·appreciate tl\e evicler1ce in a. second appeaL The
operative portion
.
to this
.
aspect reads as under:
"22. A second appeal, or for that· n1atter, any
appeal is not a· matter of right. the right of
appeal is conferred by statute. A sec on(~ ap})eal

only lies oh a. substantial question of law. If
statute confers ? lirnited right of· appeal, the
court cannot expand the scope of the appeal. It
was not open to the respon~ent-plaintifi to
reagitate facts or to .ca~l upon the High Court to
rea.nalyse or reappreciate evidence in a· second
appeal.
I .
.. 23. Section 100 CPC, as arr:.ended, restricts
the right of second appeal, to Only those cases,

~ .
where a substantial question of law is involved.
The existence of a "su.bstantial question of law"
is the . sine qua non for the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 100 Cr ..
XXX XXX XXX
28. To be "substantial", a question of law must
.be debatable, not prevjously settled by the law
of the land or any binding precedent, and must
·have a n.1aterial bearing on th\! decision of the
case and/or the rights of the p·arties before it, if

.. _...
answered either ·way. \
29. To be a qu.estion of lavv "involved 1n the
: citse, there rnust be first, a founda~ion for it laid
in the pleadings, and the question should
ernerge fron1 the sustainab1e findings of fact,

'
arrived at by courts of facts, and it rnust be
necessary to desjde that question of law for a
Just
j; .
·and proper decision of the case."
(En1phasis supplied)
26. This second appea1 is accordingly dismissed
and the order of the First Appellate Court is upheld.
27. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
28. It is needless to sav. that the decree of

- I
. . .
possession passed in favour of the Respondent, is a
decree which is binding inter-se the parties arid in no
rnanner effects the rights, if any,· of the
Custodian/ Central Governn1ent qua · the' suit
premises, which will be decided in the appr()priate
proceedings~ if any, initiated by the Custodian/
Central Government.
..
Sd/-
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH AHORA, ...J
NOVEMBER 8, 2023/akcjn1s ·
I /TRUE COPY I I
L6
Relied Upon Judgment

SUPREME COURT'OF INDIA . .. . .
'
M/ S Nopany Investments (P) Ltd vs S~~tokh Singh
(Huf) on 10 December, 2007
Author: T Chatterjee
· Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P.Sathasivam
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5761 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Mjs Nopany Investments (P) Ltd
RESPONDENT:
Santokh Singh (HUF)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/2007
BENCH:
~
Tarun Chatterjee & P.Sathasivam
JUDGMENT:
007
,·
assailing the . P.rferred befi

.·.;t> JUd€5t:n.ent an o~e Us,.
A
pn'1 , 2007, .
pass·~d l~~f!-;r::?
rJ d
ecree dated 19
5.,.,.,
J
tL... '1
.l..J.e, \ . . .
. th of
.
, . whereby, the High,. C tlgh .. Court of D .lh..

-- ) ourt h . e 1,
.f.•.. a.d d~ .
appellant th·~; JJ:J.lssed the
..... ' . eleby appeal
"~~ · ·. a.ffir'h-. ·
I . . •, -<.J.lltJ.g th •
6,~,....~f;, ! e JUdg.rn
f1'""··"" . . en ts of
the courts below decreeing the eviction suit filed at
the instance· of the respondent ·against the
appellant.
3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal
may be stated as follows.
4. On 16th of July, 1980,. the appellant entered
into a lease with Dr. Santokh Singh HUF for a
period of 4 years; with respect to the property
, situated at N-112, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi (for
short "the suit premises"), at a monthly rent of Rs.
3500 j -. Accordingly, at the expiry of the afore said
perioc?- ()f 4 years, a notice of ·eviction dated 5th of
April, 1984 was iss:ued which ~as .followed by filing
an. Eviction petition No. 432 of .1984 before the
Additional Rent Contro,ller by J asraj Singh, claiming
himself to be the Karta of Dr. Santokh Singh HUF.

!
The;: Additional Rent Controller; passed an order
directing the appellant for payment of rent at the
rate of Rs. 3500/-. After coming into force of Section
6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a notice dated 9th
of January; 1992 was sent by Jasraj Singh, in the

'
above capacity, to the appellant for enhancement of

rent by 10 percent and also termination of tenancy
of the appellant. In reply to this notice, the
appellant denied the right of the respondent to
enhance the rent. Another notice dated ·3Jst of
March 1992 was sent afresh by the respondent
notifying the appellant that the rent stood enhanced
by 10 perce:qt while the tenancy stood .terminated
w.e.f. 16/ 17th 'of July, 1992. The aforesaid eviction
petition No. 432 of 19"84 was withdrawn on 20th of
August, 1992 by J asraj Singh. Thereafter, a notice
dated 3rd of September, 1992 was sen~ by Jasraj
Singh asking the appellant to vacate the suit
property to which the appellant did not concede and
refused to vacate the same by a reply dated 24th of

\-.
September, 1992. On 6th of February, 1993, Dr.
Santokh Singh HUF, through Jasraj Singh, claiming
himself to be the Karta of the HUF, ·instituted a suit
seeking eviction of the appellant from the suit
premises. The .trial court decreed the resp'ondent's
suit for possession, against .which an appeal was
preferred before the Additional Distnct Judge, Delhi.
The first appellate court dismissed the appeal

summarily. Against this order of the first appellate
court, a second appeal, being R.S.A. No. 146 of

'
2003, was preferred before the High Court of Delhi,
which remanded the matter to the first appellate
cour.t fcJr 'fresh consideration. In pursuance of this
. direction of the High Court, the fir~t appellate court,
after fresh consideration of the matter, affirmed the
judgment passed by the· Trial court thereby
dismissing the appeal of the appellant herein. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the 'order of the first
appellate', court, the appellant preferred a second
appeal, being ·R.S.A. No. 209 of 2005, before the
High Court of Delhi, which, hovyever, was also
dismissed. 'It is this decision of the High Court of
Delhi, which is impugned in this appeal and 1n
respect of which leave has already been granted.
5. The pivotal questions, inter alia, in the facts
and circumstances of this case, which warrant our
determination are as follows:
(i) Whether Jasraj Singh could file the suit for
eviction, in the capacity of 'the Karta of Dr.

f).O
Santokh Singh HUF, when, ·admittedly, an
elder member of the aforesaid HUF was alive ?
(ii) Whether the High Court . was right· in
concluding that the first appellate court had
duly dealt, with all· the issues involved· and re-
appreciated evidence as provided under 0.41
R.31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short
lithe CPC 11 )?
(iii) Whether the contractual tenancy between the
landlord and tenant came to an end rherely by
filing an Eviction Petition and whether the
landlord could seek enhancement of rent
simultaneously or post termination of tenancy?
(iv) Whether the landlord could issue a '.notice

\--
under Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (in short "the Act") for increase of rent
without sdeking leave of the rent controller
during the pendency of an order under Section

I
15 of the Act directing the tenant to deposit
rent on a month to month basis ?

..
6. We have· heard the learned counsel for: the
parties. As . regards the first issue, . as noted

-21
hereinabove, the learned senwr counsel Mr. Gupta
appearing on behalf of the appellant had questioned
the maintainability .of ·the suit filed at the instance
,of Jasraj Singh, claiming himself to be the Karta of

f • • •
Dr. Santokh Singh HUF. The learned counsel Mr.
Gupta strongly argued before us that in view of the
settled.
. .
pr:incipal
.
of law that the junior member in a
jo~·nt family cannot deal with tpe joint famil:y
pr·op;erty as Karta so long as the elder brother is
available, the respondent herein, who is admittedly

I
a junior member of the family, could not have
instituted the eviction suit, clai!f-ing himself to be
the Ka:r:ta of the family. Iri support of this argument,
the;· learned senior counsel Mr." Gupta has placed
reUance on the decisions of this court in Sunil
Kumar and another Vs. Ram Prakash and others
[(1988) 2 SCC 77] and Tribhovan Das Haribhai
Tamboli Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and others
[(1~91} 3 sec 442].

7. Before we look at the v1ew~ expressed by the
. High Court on this question, it would be pertinent to
note the ratios of the two authoritie~ cited before us.

. ..
In Sunil Kumar and another Vs. Ram Prakash and
others [supra], this court held as follows: -
"In a Hindu family, the Karta or· Manager
occupies ·a unique position. It is not as if
anybody could become Manager of a j9int
Hindu fumily.
As a general rule, the father of a famtlyl if alive,
and in his absence the senior member of the
family, is alone entitled to· manage the joint
family property."
From a reading :Of the aforesaid observation' of this
court in Sunil Kumar and another Vs: Ram Prakash
and others [supra], we are unable to accept that a

younger brother of a joint hindu family would not at
all be entitled to manage the joint family property as
the. Karta of the family. This· decision only lays_ down
a general rule that the father of a family, if ,alive,
and in his absence the senior member of the :family
would be entitled to manage the jqint family
property. Apart from that, this decision: was
rendered on the questi0n whether a suit for
permanent injunction, filed by co-parcerners for

restraining .the Karta of a joint hindu family from
alienating the joint faplily proper.ty in pursuance of
a sale agreement with a third party, was
maintainable or not. While considering that aspect
of the·· rri.atter, this court considere-d as to when
90u~d the alienation· of joint farriily'property by the

.·.
Kart~ be permitted. Accordingly, it is difficult for us
to ~gree with Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant, that the decision in
Surtil Kumar and another V s. Ram Prakash and
others '[supra] would be applicable in the present
case which, in our view, does not at all hold that
when the elder member of a joint hindu family is
alive, the ybunger member would not at all be
entitled to act as a manager or Karta of the joint
family property.
8. In Tribhovandas's case [supra], this court held
as fol.lows:
"13 ........ The managership of the joint family
property· goes to a person by birth and is
regulated by seniority. and the karta or the
manager occupies a position superior to that of

the other members. A junior member cannot,
therefore,:deal with the joint family property as
manager so long .. as the karta is . available
except where the karta relinquishes his right
expressly or by necessary implication or in the
absence · of the manager i~ exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances such as distress
or calamity affecting the whole family and for
supporting the family or in the absence of the
father whose whereabouts were not known or
who was away 1n remote place due to
compelling circumstances and that his return
within the reasonable time was unlikely or not
anticipat~d. II
(Emphasis supp~ied)
·. 9. From a careful reading of the observation of
this court in Tribhovandasls case [supra], it would

'
be evident that a younger member of the joint hindu
family can deal with the joint family property as
manager in the following circumstances: -
(i) if the senior member or the Karta · is not
available;
. '
:;(ii) where the Karta relinquishes his right
. ,expressly or by necessary implication;
(iii) in. the absence of the manager 1n

'
exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances
such as distress or calamity affecting the whole
faJ;TI.iiy. and for supporting the family;
(iv) in the absence of the father: -
· (a) whose whereabouts were not known or
(b) who was away_ in_ a remote place due to
c9mpelling circumstances and his return
within a reasonable time was unlikely or not
anticipated.
~
Therefore, in ·Tribhovandas's case [supra], it has
been made clear that under the aforesaid
circumstance~, a junior member of the joint hindu
family can deal with the joint family property as
manager or act· as the Karta of the same.
10. From the above observations of this court in
the aforesaid two decisions, we can come to this
conclusion that it is usually the Father of the
famlly, if he is alive, and in his absence the senior

. .
member of the family, who is entitled to manage the
joint family property. In order -co satisfy ourselves
whether the . . conditions · ·enumerated 0

1n
Tribhovandas's case [supra] have beeri satisfied 1n
the present case, we ~ay ·n.ote the findings arrived
at by the High Court, which are as follows: -
(i) J asraj Singh, in his cross examination
before the trial court had explained that his
eldest brother Dhuman Raj Singh (supposed to
be the Karta of the HUF) has been living in
United Kingdom for a long time. Therefore, the
.trial court had rightly presumed that Dhuman
Raj Si~gh was not in a position to discharge
his duties as Karta of the HUF, due to his
absence from the country.
(ii) The respondent produ~ed. the Xerox copy

. l
of the power of attorney given by Dhuman Raj
Singh to Jasraj Singh.
(iii) The trial court relied upon the law

0
discussed in the· books namely, "Principles of
Hindu Law" by Mulla and Mulla and "Shri S.V.
Gupta on Hindu Law", wherei~ it has been
observed that ordinl?-ri~y, the rignt to act as the

Karta of HUF is vested in the senior- most male
<member but in his absence, the junior
members can also act as Karta.
(Emphasis supplied)
.• (iv) There was no protest by any member of the
joint hindu family to the filing of the suit by
J asraj Singh claiming himself to be the Karta
of the HUF. There was also no whisper or
protest by Dhuman Raj Singh against the

. .
.acting of J asraj Singh as the Karta of the H'UF.
11. · It may also be noted that the High Court relied
on the decision of this court in Narendrakumar J.
Modi ,Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II,
Ahme.dapad [(AIR) 1976 SC 1953'], wherein it was
held that so long as the members of a family remain

'
~
undivided, the senior member of the family 1s
entitled to manage the family properties ... and 1s
presumed. to .be manager until contrary is shown,
but the senior member may give up his right of
management, and a JUnlOr member may be
appointed manager.
' .,
.
·'~
12. Another decision in Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs.
Manohar Lal J.ain [2006 II AD (SC) 520], was also
relied upon by the High Court wherein it has been
held at paragraph 10 as follows:
"10. A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, 1s
maintainable in law. It is not necessary for the
co- owner to show before initiating the eviction
proceeding before the Rent Controller that he
had taken option or consent of the other co-
owners. 'However, in the event, a co-owner
objects thereto, the same may be a relevant

~
fact. In the instant case, nothing has been
brought 0!1- record: to show that the· co-owners
of th~ respondent had objected .to . eviction
proceedings · initiated by the respondent
herein."
13. Having relied on the aforesaid decisions of this
Court and a catena of other decision.s · and the
findings arrived at by it, as noted hereinabove, the
High Court rejected the argument of the appellant
that Jasraj Singh could not have acte? as the Karta
of the family as his elder brother, namely, Dhuman

Raj. Singh, being the sen1or rn:ost ·member of the
HUF; was alive. In view of our discussions made

'
her~i11. earlier and considering the principles laid
down in Tribhovandas's case [supra] and Sunil
Kumar'~ case [supra], we neither find any infirmity
nor ;do we find any reason to differ with the findings
arrived at by the High Court in the impugned
judgment. I~ is true that' in view of the decisions of
this court in Sunil Kumar's case [supra] and
Tribhovandas's case [supra], it is only in exceptional
circumst?-nces, as noted herein earlier, that a junior
member can act as the Karta of the family. But we
· venture to mention here that Dhuman Raj Singh,
the senior member of the HUF, admittedly, has been
staying permanently in the United Ki?gdom for a
long time. In Tribhovandas's case. [supra] itself, it
was held that if the Karta of the HUF was away in a
remote place, .(in this case in a foreign country) arid
his return within a reasonable time was unlikely, a
junior men;.ber could act as the Karta of the family.
In the present case, the elder brother Dhuman Raj
Singh, who is permanently staying in United

. .·' l' ~0
Kingdc-rn was/is·riot in ·a p~sition· to iiandie the }oint
family property for which reason he has himself
executed a power of attorney in favour of J as raj
Singh. Furthermore, there has been no protest,
either by Dhuman Raj Singh or by any ·member of
the HUF to the filing of the suit by Jasraj Singh.
That apart, in our view, it would not be open to the
tenant to raise the question of maintainability of the
suit at the ins~ance of J asraj Singh as we find from
the record that J asraj Singh has all along been
·.realizing the rent from the tenant and for this
reason, the tenant is now estopped from raising any

.
such question. In View of the discussions made
herein above, we are, therefore, of the view that the
High Court was fully justified in holding that the
suit was main~ainabl.e at the instance of 'J asraj
Singh, claiming himself to be the Karta of the- HUF.
14. This takes us .. to the next issue namely;
whether the High Court was right in concluding that
the first appellate court had duly dealt with all the
issues involved and re-appreciated the evidence as
provided under 0.41 R.31 of the CPC. The learned
. '
sertior counsel for the appellant·· Mr. Gupta sought
to argue that the High Court had erred in holding
that. the first appellate court had acted in due
compliance with 0.41 of the CPC. It may be noted

. .
that: the High Court,. while concluding as aforesaid,
came to.'the following findings: -
' 1) The first appellate court has passed a
speaking order and. it is apparent that it has
applied ·its mind.
2) The First appellate court had to deal with
the c,rrguments which were advanced before it.
· It had rightly given the short shrift to all those
arguments which did riot inject some
coherence.
3) The~ learned counsel. for· th~ appellant had
failed to point out the ~ssu,es regarding which
the First Appellate court had not given its own
conclusion.
4) The learned counsel for the appellant had
also failed to show as to how the authority
cited v1z., Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam

Tiwari (dead) by LRs. [AIR 200r' SC 965] ·was
applicable to the facts of the case.
15. In our view, it is difficult for us to set aside the
findings of the High Court on the question whether
the first appellate court, while deciding the
questions of fact and law, had complied with the
requirements under 0.41 of the CPC. We are in
agreement witJ::l the findings of the High Court as on
a perusal of the judgment of the first appellate
court, it do~s not appear to us that the findings
arrived at by the first appellate court affirming the

. .
'
judgment of the trial ·court on any issue were either
very cryptic or based on non-consideration of the
arguments advanced by the parties before it. In
support of this _contention, before the High· Court;
the appellant had relied on a decision of this court
in the case of Santosh Hazari [supra], ·but in this
appeal, the learned senior counsel for the appellant
Mr. Gupta has strongly relied on a decision of this
court in the case of Madhukar & Ors. Vs. Sangram
& Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 756] and contended thatsince
the judgment of the first appellate court was cryptic

in na,.ture ·and the first appellate court had not dealt
. '
wit~·the issues involved in the appeal, the same was

.,
.·.
liable to be set aside and the matter was liable to be
senfback to the· first appellate court for rehearing.
We 'are unable to accept this contention of the
learped senior counsel for the app~llant.
16. :; Before we consider the findings of the first
appellate court as well as the High Court on this
issue, we must keep o·n record that in Madhukar &

I
Ors. Vs. Sangram & Ors. [supra], this court had to
reverse the findings of the High Court because the
High Court erred 1n allowing the
plaintiff/respondents first appeal without even
considering the grounds on which the trial court
had dismissed the suit and without discussing the
evidence on 'record. On the same lines, the decision
of. this court in Santosh Hazari's case [supra] was

'
based. In our view, the aforesaid two decisions of
this court are distinguishable on facts with the
present case. A perusal of the judgment of the first
appellate court after remand would clearly indicate
that the·. same was neither cryptic nor based on non-

··.
consideration of the issues involved 1n the appeal.
Apart from that, it has to be kept in mind that the
decisions of this court in Madhukar & Ors. Vs.
Sangram & Ors. [supra] and Santosh Hazari's case
[supra], were considering the reversal of the findings
of fact of the trial court. In the presc:nt case, the first
appellate court had affirmed the findings of the trial
court, which were based on total consideration of
· the material~ evidence· - documentary and oral on
record. It is well settled that in the case of

'
reversal,
.
the first appellate court ought to give s.om~ reason
for reversing the findings of the tri~l 'court whereas
in the case of affirmation, the first appellate co1.;trt
accepts the rea~ons and findings of the· trial court.
I11; any view of the matter, from a perus.al of. the

. .
judgment of the first appellate court, it is clear that
it reflects conscious application of mind and has
recorded the findings supported by re·ason on all the
issues arising along with the contentions put
forward by the parties.
17. In Santosh Hazari's case [supra], this' court
observed: -
"The task of an appellate court affirming the
..findings of the trial court is an ·easier one. The

I '•, •
.: appellate court agreeing with.' the view of the
trial court need not restate the effect of the
evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the
trial court; expression of general agreement
with the reasons given by the court, decision of
· which 1s under appeal, would ordinarily
suffice."
(Emphasis supplied).
Again, in Madhukar & Ors. Vs. Sangram & Ors.
[supra], this court had to set aside the judgment of
the High Court because the first appellate court was
singularly silent as to p.ny discussion, either of the
doc"4mentary or the oral evidenc:e. In addition, this
· court in that decision was of the view that the
findings of ,the. first appellate court' were so cryptic
that none of the relevant aspects were noticed. In
this background, this court at paragraph 8 observed
as follows: -
"Our careful perusal of the judgment 1n the
first appeal shows that it hopelessly falls short

of considerations which are expected from the
court of first appeal. We, accordingly set aside
the impugned judgment and decree of the High
Court and remand the first appeal to the High
Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with
law."
18. In view of our discussions made hereinabove,
we are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned
senior counsel for the appellant Mr. Gupta that the
High Court w~s not justified in holding that the
findings of the first appellate court were In
compliance With 0.41 of the CPC. 'That apart, the
learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. Gupta
could not satisfY us or even point out the specific
issues which, in his opinion, had been left to be
addressed by the first appellate court. In view of the
discussions made herein above, we are, therefore, of
the view that no ground was mad,e out by the
appellant to set aside the judgment of the High
Court on the question whether the judgment of the
first appellate court was liable to be set·. aside for
''
..:- '7
..1:
non- compliance wi-..h the mandatory provisions of
0.4l'of the CPC .

. ·..
19. •. Let us now dea'l with Issue.'Nos. 3. and 4. Since
both these issues are interlinked, we shall deal with
the.~e two issues together. Let us first consider
whether the respondent landlord could 1ssue a
notice under Section 6A of the Act for Increase of
rent when the petition for eviction of the appellant .,
was pending before the Additional Rent Controller
and when there had beeh an order to the tenant for
deposit of rent on a month to month basis under
Section 15 of the Act. In our view, the first appellate
court as well as the High Court were fully justified
in holding that it was open to a landlord to increase

.
the .rent ·of the suit premises by 10°/o after giving a
notice under section . 6A of the Act. In this
connection,' it would be appropriate to reproduce
Section 6A of the Act which talks about revision of
rent and Section 8 of the Act which contemplates
notice of increase of rent. Section 6A~runs as under:

"6A. Revision of rent Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, the standard
rent, or, where no standard rent is fixed under
the provisions of this Act in respect of any

.
premises, the rent agreed upon between the
~andlord and the tenant, may be increased by
ten per pent every three years".·

·--
From a bare perusal of this provision under Section
6A of the Act, ·it. is evi.dent that by this statutory

. .
provision, the standard rent and in .c?-ses where no
standard rent is fixed under the Act in respect of
any premises, the rent agreed upon betw~en th~
landlord and the tenant, may be increased by 1 0°/o
every three years. It is, therefore, open to the
landlord under Section 6A of the Act to increase the
rent agreed upon between him and .the tenant by
1 Oo/o every three years, i~-re~pective of the fact that
an eviction proceeding is pending and an · order
under Section 15 of the Act has been pass~d by the
Additional Rent Controller except that when a land

lord wishes to so increase the rent of any pretp.ises,
a notice of increase of rent, as provided.·:under
.• t •
Section 8·of the Act, has to ·be ser\red on the tenant
thereby intimating the tenant his intention to make
the increase. Section 8 of the Act runs as under: -
·"8.
..
Notice of increase of rent [J (1) Where a
. .. .
landlord wishes to increase the rent of any
.. .
::premises, he shall give the tenant notice of his
I
·intention to. make the increase and in so far as
such increase is lavvful under this Act, it shall
be due and recoverable only in respect of the
•; period of the tenancy after the expiry of thirty
· : .days from the date on which the notice is
glVen. I
(2) Every notice under sub-section (1) shall be
in writing signed by or ·on behalf of the

-"""\
lan~:lord and given in ·the manner provided in
·section· 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
· 1982 (4 of 1882)."
Therefore, if the landlord wishes to increase the rent
of any premises at any time, only a notice
expressing his intention to .make, such increase is
required to be given to the tenant and Section 6A of
the Act, as n~ted herein earlier, cleatly permits the

landlord to increase the rent by 10°/o every three
years. In this view of the matter, after the
completion of three years, it was open to the
landlord at any point even during the. pendency of
an eviction petition to increase the rent of the suit
prem1ses after g1v1ng the prescrib~d notice to ·the
tenant.
20. At this stage, we may also consider Section 3(c)
of the Act,. which bars the application of the Act to
the premises whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.
3500/-. Section 3(c) of the Act runs as under:- 11 Act
not to apply to .:certain premises LJ Nothing in this
Aet shall apply:
(a)-(b)***
(c) to any premises, whether residential or not,
whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand I
. .
and five hundred rupees; 11
21. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was
amended by Act No. 52 of 1988, which came into
effect from 1st of December, 1988. By, this
amendment of the 1958 Act on 1st of December,
. .
Y.i
I <
'·( J.
198.8, Section ~(c) with other . am~ndments was

f • • •
brought into force. Section 3(c) of the amended act
provides that the provisions of the Act will not apply
to any· premises whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.
3500/- from the date of coming into· operation of
this act. In D.C. Bhatia and others Vs. Union of
India and another [·(1995) lSCC 104], while

;· ..
cort~idering the parent act and the amending act,
this' ::court held that the objects ori the amending act
are ,guit'e different from the objects of the parent act.
It observed that one of the objects of the amending
act. was to rationalize . the rent control law by
bringing ab0ut a balance between the interest of
landlords and tenants. It was also observed that the
object was not merely to protect the weaker section
of the community. The Rent Act had brought to a
halt .house-building activity for: letting out. This
'court also m·ade ·an observation that many people
with accomm-odation to spare. did not let out the
accommodation for the fear of losing the

. . .
accommodation. As a result of all these, there was
acute shortage of accomn1.odation ~which caused

hardship to the rich and the poor alike and that in
the background of this experience, the amending act
of 1988 was passed. In paragraph 28 of the
aforesaid decision in D.C. Bhatia's case [supra], this
. court observ<£d as follows:-
"28. In order to strike a balance between the
interests of the landlords and also the tenants
and for giving a boost to . house-building
activity, the legislature in its wisdom has
decided to restrict the protection of the Rent
Act only to those premises for which· rent is
payable up to the sum of Rs 3Soo· per month
and has decided not to extend this statutory
protection to the premises constructed on or
after the date of coming into operation of the
Amending Act for a period of ten years. This is
a matter of legislative policy. The legislature

. .
could have: repealed the Rent Act al~ogether. It
can also repeal it step by step. It has decided
to confine the statutory protection to the

I
existing tenancies whose monthly rent did not
exceed Rs 3500." ' .

Considering the aforesaid reasons which led to the
amending act of 1988, it is clear that the legislature
intended· to · 'st:dke ·a· balance· ·by' allowing the
landlords to evict a tenant, who could pay more
than Rs. 3500 I- per month, from the tenanted
pr~mises.
22..-. Jn the present case, after serving a notice
und~r Section 6A read with Section 8 of the Act, the --.....

protection of the tenant under the Act automatically
!
cea~ed to exist as the rent of the tenanted premises
exc~ed~d Rs. 3500 I- and the bar of Section 3(c)
came into play. At the risk of repetition, since, in the
present case, the increase of rent by 10°/o on the
rent agreed upon between the· appellant and the
respondent brought the suit premises out of the ~
purview of the Act in view of Section 3(c) of the Act,
it was pot nec.essary to take leave of the rent
controller and the suit, as noted ~erein above, could

. .
be filed by the landlord under the general law. The
landlord was only required to serve a notice on the
tenan.t ~xpressing his intention to. make such
Increase. When the eviction petition was pending

., ·'
before the Additional Rent Controller and the order
passed by him under Section 15 of the'Act directing
the appellant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.
3500/- was also subsisting, the notice dated 9th of

~
January, 1992 was sent by the respondent to the
appellant intimating him that he wished to increase
the rent by 10 percerit. Subsequent to this notice,

. . . .
another notice dated 31st of March, 1992 was sent
by the respondent intimating the appellant

.
that
'
by.
virtue of the notice dated 9th of January, 1992 and
in. view of Section· 6/\ of the Act, the. 'rent stood
enhanced by 10 percent i.e. from Rs. 3500 I- to Rs.
3850 I-. It is an admitted position that the tenancy

'
of the appellant was terminated by a •further notice
dated 161 17th of July, 1992. Subsequent to this,
the eviction petition No. 432 of 1984 was withdrawn
by the respondent on 20th of August, 1992 and the

. .
suit for eviction, out of which the pre~ent ~ppeal
'
has arisen, was filed on 6th of February, 199'3~. That
being the factual

. position, it cannot at all be
.
said
that the suit could not be filed without the leave·. of
the Additional Rent Controller when, admittedly, at

the time of filing of the said suit, the eviction
petjtion before the Additional Rent Controller had
already been withdravvn nor can it be said that the
notice of increase of rent and termination of tenancy
could not be given simultane.ously, when, in fact,
the notiee dated 16/ 17th· of July, 1992 was also a

. ..·.
notice to quit. ·and the notice in:te:qding increase of
ren{:in terms of Section 6A of the Act was earlier in
date· than the no.tice dated 16/ 17th of July, 1992. In
any view of the matter, it is well settled that filing of

'
an :eviction suit under the general law itself is a
notice fo quit on the tenant. Therefore, we have no
hesitation to· hold that no notice to quit was
necessary under Section 106 ·of the Transfer of
Property Act. in order to enable the respondent to get
a decree of eviction against the appellant. This view
has also been expressed in the decision of this court
in V. Dhanapaf Chettiar Vs. Yesodai Ammal ·[AIR
(1979) sc 1745].
·23. Before parting with this judgment, we may deal
with a decision of this court in the case of Ambalal
Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal & Co. and

. ., ~ ....
4{,
another [(2001) 8 sec 397] on which the learned
senior counsel for the appellant Mt. Gupta placed

~
strong reliance. Relying on this decision, Mr. Gupta
sought to argtie .that the amendment of the. Act
being not · retrospe~tive in ope~ati~Jf, in view of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, it would not
affect the pending eviction proceeding, which woulc;l
continue as if the act had not been amended and

. .
therefore, the suit filed by the res.pondent for
eviction under the general law without taking leave
from the Additional Rent Controller could not be

'
said to be maintainable. In
. .
our view, the decision of
this court in Ambalal Sarabhai's case [supra] does
not support the appellant but it supports the
respondent. In that decision, this court held that
the vested right of the landlord under the g~neral
law continues so long it is not abridged ·by the
protective legislation, namely, the Rent Act, but the
moment this protection is withdrawn, the :vested
right of the landlord reappears which cari be
enforced by him. Such being the position, we are,
therefore, of the view that since the eviction petition

filed by the respondent before the Additional Rent
Controller was withdrawn and the tenancy was
terminated by a fresh notice to quit and in view of
the increase of rent wished by the landlord in
.compliance· with Section 6A read with Section 8 of
the. Act, there cannot. be any difficuity to hold that
the suit in fact was maintainable under the general
law. T~~t being the position, the decision of this
co:U;t~
1
in Ambalal Sarabhai S case [s:upra] can not at
I • ' t ', I
an· 'be applicable in favour of the appellant and
which, in view of our discussions made hereinabove,

.
can only be applicable in favour of the respondent.
24;;: For. the reasons aforesaid, n9ne of the grounds
urged ·.bY the learned senior counsel for the

'
appellant Mr. Gupta can be accepted by us to
interfere with the impugned judgment of the High
Court. Accdrdingly, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, we grant time to the
appellant to vacate the premises in question by ~9th
of February, 2008 provided the: appellant files an
.usual undert~king in this regard in. this court within

\ ·-'
a fortnight from this date. In default, it will be open
·.to the respondent to proceed to execute the decree
for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises

. .
in accordance with law. There will be no order as to
costs.
Sd,/-
. '--
I /TRUE COPY I I
-..,.,.
'-'
Relied Upon Judgment

RSA 46/2012
Date of Decision: June 1st, 2012
CEMENT CORPORATION OF
INDIA LTD ... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
· · ·· Mr . Ami t Partigrahi and
Ms. Tanupriya, Advs.
Versus
BBA~T BHUSHAN SEHGAL ... Respondent

Through: ·Mr. G.D. Gael, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Chetan Sharma, Sr.· Adv. with
Mr. Vikas Chopra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1
VEENA.BIRBAL, J.:-·
RSA No. 46/2012
1. ·By way of this second appeal under Section
100 and Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the appellant has
challenged two concurrent judgments i.e one dated
01.03.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Di~trict
Judge 1n RCA No. 16/2011 and the other dated

15.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi
in C.S No. 185/2010.··
2. The facts leading to the filing of present appeal
are as under:-
The respondent herein 1.e plaintiff. before the
learned Civil Judge, Delhi had filed a s1..1it for
possession and mesne profits j damages stating
therein that he was the landlord/ owner of flat No.
G-1 on the ground floor of multi s.torey building
known as CCI House,. 8'7, Nehru Place, Delhi

I
wherein the appellant i.e defendant before the
learned trial court was inducted as a ter1:-ant w.e.f
15.10.1979 by Ms. Janamjeet Kaur. The:: total
monthly rent was Rs. 3,575/-. The period of; lease

"'-.. ...
was limited to three years. The terms of lease· were
I • '
reduced into writing on 1.2.1980 On the expiry of
the period of lease, the appellant continued to
occupy the premises: The suit property ·was
purchased by the appellant from the previous owner
i.e Smt. Janarnjeet Kaur, late Sardar Amarjeet
Singh and Smt .. Depender· Kaur. .The appellant had
attorned respondent/plaintiffs as its iandlord. The

'
·-· .1_
appellant/ defendant continued to occupy the
premises even. after the expiry of lease. The rate of
rent 1n December, 2009 was Rs. 8,429.63.
Respondent had alleged that the tenancy was
terminated in December, 2009 vide notice dated
23.12.2009 effect~ve from the midnight of
31.01.2010 As the possession was not delivered, the
respondent/plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit.
3. The appellant/ defendant contested the suit by
filing written statement wherein the appellant did

0 •
nc:(~dispute the rent agreement d~ted i.2.1980 It

. : .··
alsc): did not deny that the respondent had stepped
into.the shoes of erstwhile owners upon purchase of
the suit property by the respondent/plaintiff and

i
that the appellant had been paying rent to the

: • 0
' 0
responqentjplaintiff w.e.fAugust, 2009 and the rent
wa~ increased to Rs. 8,429.63 w.e.f 16.10.2006
Appellant/ defendant in the written statement had
denied the receipt of notice of termination of
tenancy dated 23.12.2009
4. Thereupon, the respondent/plaintiff had
moved. an. app~ication under Order 12 Rule 6 read

with Section 151 CPC stating therein· that the
appellant/ defendant had admitted the relationship
as lessor and lessee between the· parties and had
also admitted that last paid rent was Rs. 8,429.63
per month. It was further stated in the application
that the legal notice dated 23-.12.2009 ·sent by
registered A.D post and under certificate of posting
was duly served upon appellant and the appellant
had deliberately denied the receipt of same in the
written statement. It was alleged that the legal
notice was served upon appellant/ defendant on i
26.12.2009 and on 29.1.2.2009 respectively and the
same had been :confirmed by the postal authorities
as having delivered vide their respective certificates

I
dated 03.03.2007 and 04.03.2007 The copies of
certificates issued by the postal department .. had

. .. . .
been annexed· with the application. It was fur:-ther
. . .
alleged that the appellant was month ·to month
tenant and the relationship between the parties
came to an end by virtue of notice dated 23.12.2009
as well as by .afflux of time as such the decree of
possession be passed.
. -,
:: . ..:; }~~~"1
..../
5. The reply to said application was filed by
appellant/ defendant stating therein that it
continued to be a contractual tenant and there is no
admission on their part as such the suit could not
be disposed of under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC.
Appellant/ defendant had denied having received
any notice. However, the rate of rent was admitted.
The receipt. of notice was denied. At the same time,
it had taken. a s't'and. that the n'otice was not valid
and the same was without any basis and had no
meaning in the eyes of law.

. .
6.: ::The suit of the respondent/plaintiff was
decreed by Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment/ decree
dat~d 15.11.2011 as regards possession of the suit
property on the basis of admission by the \

i
appellant/ defendant under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC

• 0
on i ·the_ ground that existence of . relationship of
landlord and tenant is admitted and the rent was
more than Rs. 3,500 I- per month and the tenancy
has been d1.;tly terminated.
7. The af~resaid judgment/ decree of possession
was challenged by the appellant/ defendant before

the leamed Addl. ·District Judge,. Delhi by filing an
appeal. The appeal was also dismissed vide
impugned jud~mentjdecree dated 01.03.2012
which is challenged by. filing the second appeaL
8. As such there is no clear admission. on the part
of the respondent/plaintiff as regards termination of
tenancy and as such decree of possession could not
have been passed in respect of the suit property in
favour of respondent/plaintiff. It is contended that
even site plan of suit property is not correc;:t artd the
impugned decree is liable to be set aside.
9. The learned senwr counsel for; the
respondent/plaintiff hq.s contended that
relationship between the parties as lessor and lessee
came to an end v~Q.e notice dated 23.12.2009·:w:P,ich · ·
was sent .by registered _A.D post/UPC an.~· th~ same
was duly served upon appellant/ defendant and
same had been confirmed by Postal Department as
such mere denial by ·appellant/defendant has !].O
meaning. It is further contended th.at the lease
agreement dated 0 1. 02.1980 was an unregistered
document and the same was never renewed 1n

·\
writing after 1982. It""is contended that both the
courts below have rightly passed the decree of
possession in favour of respondent/plaintiff. It 1s
contended that no substantial question of law arises
in the present appeal.

10. In the present case, the appellant/defendant
has admitted the relationship of lessor and lessee
between respondent/plaintiff and itself and has also
admitted the last paid rent as Rs. 8429.63 It is also
admitted' position that lease· agreement dated
01.02.1980 was never renewed in writing after
1982. It is also admitted position that the lease deed

. .
was: unregistered and the tenancy was month to

. .
·month basis. It has come .on· record that notice
under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882
wa·s. sent by the respondent/plaintiff by UPC as well

I
as. by regd. A.D post. The finding of both the courts
; . ·i
below show that respondent/plaintiff had placed on
re~ord original UPC and registered A.D receipt and
also the original returned A.D card showing the
receipt of notice by the appellant/ defendant. It has
also been noted that the. UPC receipt and A.D card
bear the addresses of the appellant/ defendant. It ·is
not the stand : of appellant/ defendant that the
addresses mentioned therein are · incorrect
addresses. Under these circumstances, it has been
rightly held that the notice is presumed to have
been duly served upon appellant/ dftfendant. The
A.D card bears a stamp in acknowledgment of
receipt of notice. Further, there is letter on record
showing that Department of Posts has certified the
delivery of notic~ sent through registered ·A.D ~t the

address of the appellant/ defendant. It may al~o be
noticed that in reply to application under Order 12
Rule 6, on the one hand, the appellant/ defendant is
denying having r~ceived the notice of termiria:tion
dated 23.12.2009 and ·on the other hand, it is
disputing the validity of notice of termination of the
lease. Howev~r, durin~ ar~me~~s learn~d co1:1-nsel
for appellant/ defendant failed to substantiate 1n
what manner the notice was invalid.
11. In Nopany Investments (P) Ltd .. v. Santokh
Singh (Huf)); (2008) 2 SCC 728, the Supreme Court
has held that the tenancy would stand terminated

57
under general law on filing of a suit for eviction.
~ .
Even assuming the notice terminating tenancy was
not served upon the appellant, as is contended,
though it has. been served as is noted above, the
learned ADJ has rightly held that filing of eviction
suit under general law itself is notice to quit on the
tenant. The learned ADJ has also placed reliance on
Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh ""
Chaddha (HUF); 2011 (182) DLT 402 in coming to
aforesaid conclusion. The . relevant finding of Ld.
ADJ is as urider:-
"Ld'. Tri'aJ Court ·has relied upori a case decided

1
by Hon ble Supreme Court titled as Nopany
Investment (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF),
(2008) 2 SCC 728, wherein Hon ble Supreme

1
Court has held that filing of an eviction suit
( under the general law itself is a notice to quit
. on the tenant. Respondent is also relying upon
the said case. On behalf of the respondent,
reliance has ·· also . been placed on a case

1
' decided by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in
· · · Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir

58
Singh Chadha (HUF). dated 25.03.2011' in RFA
179/2011, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court that service of the summons
in a suit, with a copy of the notice terminating
.
the tenancy itself is a notice under Section. 106
of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was
filed by the plaintiff on 04.02.2q.ro,' and
summons 'Y'ere served alongwith a copy of the
notice dated 23.12.2009 terminating the lease,
and that in itself . is a . sufficient notice
terminating the lease, as required under
Sectio~ 106 C?f the Transfer of the Property ,Act.

·. .
Relationship
. of landlord
. and tenant
. . .between
the parties was admitted and rent payable was
admitted to be more than Rs. 3,500 j- per
month. Notice as requl.red under· Sec'tion lb6 9f
the Transfer of the Property Act for terminating
the service has been given, be it the ·notice
dated 23.12.2009 was received by · the
appellant or same was to be treated as a
notice, when copy of the same was sent
alongwith the summons of the suit. There was

no error in decreeing the suit <;>f the respondent
against the appellant as regards the possession
of the suit property under order XII rule 6
CPC."
12. The learned counsel for appellant/defendant
has relied upon Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v.
Jasbir Singh Chaddha (HUF) : (20 10) 6 SCC 601 to
contend that the court can act under Order 12 Rule
6 of CPC only when admission is clear and
unambiguous. It is contended that there was no
clear admission of teriT.Iina~ion of tenancy, as such,
irri pugned judgment

. cannot be upheld.
. However, the
fac;;ts of the said· case. are different and the same has
no applicability to the facts and circumstances of
the present case. As is noted. above, there is clear
admiss1on on the part of· appellant/ defendant as is

.. · ....
•' ' , I
• 0 di$pussed in ·preceding paras, the 'con.tention raised
ha~ no force and is rejected.
13.. The other· contention raised 1s that the site
plan is not correct and the tenanted premises have
beyn wrongly described. No such objection is taken
in :the ··vvritten statement. The possession is sought

,..
·:...
by the respondentjpla~ntiff in respect of flat No. G-
1, CCI, House No. 87 and the property has been
correctly described in the plaint.
In view of the above discussion, no substantial
question of law arises which requires consideration
of this court.·
The appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is
given six weeks time to vacate the premises.
CM No. 4879/2012 (stay)
In view of the order on the main appeal, no
further orders .are·.required on this application~:

. .·
The same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
VEENA
. . .. . BIRBAL,
. J
June 1, 2012·
I /TRUE COPY I I
;.·
..r,
-~;.,;~
"'"'
·:"."
... :-...: .
:.) {·
r.:·' r~~"t..
.. .,~~""-- ~)
1.• ....,;~~-
., ',, Gl
"'·'
r <; l
.. jj
-r ''¥ ~~
r-... ...
• ·~- -.....; . . . . . .
,. ~ .-: , , \-~. ~~../' ~" .<:. . '.?. . . . . . .
,/ (··~)k;;:1· ~ -c~· +-HE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
\. , , ~ ~~ .#.>.OfviL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
··~. ·-.. , <-"·) ./ [S.C.R., Order XXI Rule 3(1) (a)]
"' ........ 'l.,~~~·l' •./~
·-...,..,~····. ,......._ .{'i!/(yNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

,;p. "'~. ... .I
~ ~ / \ .
~<~ /~PECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2023
~ .
[Arising out of the impugned final judgment and
order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No. 208/2023]
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
IN THE MATTER OF POSITION OF PARTIES
In the In this
Hon'ble Hon'ble
High Court Court
Subhra Kabasi Petitioner . Petitioner

W/ o Late Manoranjan
Kabasi,
Rjo House No.27, 1st Floor,
Khyber Pas~, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054
VERSUS
Ranjeet Respondent Contesting

S / o Sh. Chander Pal Respondent
R/o J-1044, Mangolpuri,
Delhi-110083
I '•,
.Tb>.
1
THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
HQN'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVENAMED;
62.
:·. '·
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

.
,/'.4-!f'~~) ·:~-
,!:!" .. '{(d- < ·..
". . ~ '·" 1'1.".
1. That the present Special Leave Pe:t.iti_ot:f:·~bas ~ t
·'',...
. ';, ·~ ·\.• f '\'?;~)

. . ·:\_.. _~.)· ' ~ "'<;;;
been filed under Article 136 of the Coti~.~~~utiori{\ ~
t · ..
of India pray1ng for Special Leave to .A:pp'eal ~ . :•
.· ...
against the impugned final judgment and· order
dated 08.1 i.2023 passed by the Han 'ble' High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No.
208/2023 whereby, the second appeal u/s 100
r jw 42 of CPC was dismissed against the

. .
impugned judgment dated 10.10.2023. passed
by L·d. ADJ 03, Tis Hazari Courts ih. ·:RcA DJ
24/2023 and confirmed the impugned decree
dated 14.08.2019 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
passed by Ld. Trial Court, Tis Haz;ari Courts in

·~ CS SCJ 1508/2018.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
That the substantial questions of law which
arise for consideration of this Hon 'ble Court are as
follows:·
I. WHETHER the court of law can intervene and
entertain the sui~ for recovery. of possession of·
immoveable property, recovery of mesne profit
. '
and permanent injunction filed by land
grabbers/ unauthorized. occupants/
encroachers against any person irtcluding the
tenant and can the court grant decree thereof
without deciding the question of title in a
separate suit for declaration against the
government who is the rightful ~wner .
. II. WHETHER the land grabbers/trespassers/
unauthorized occupants/ encroachers can
misrepresent himself/herself as landlord/
landlady or Licensee of the Government land
on the basis of forged and fabricated titled
documents and can he/ she seek Judgment
and decree in relation to the same under Order
XII Rule 6 for admission of certain facts.
III. WHETHER the land grabbers/trespassers/
unauthorized occupants/ encroachers by
cheating, ;fraud and

e~~r:cising
:· . ·:misrepresentation can enter into rent
agreements/ License agreements/ contracts in
relation to the government land and whether
··they can seek the protection of estoppel under

section 116 of Evidence Act upon admission of
certain facts.
IV. WHETHER the Ld. Trial and the ,Appellate

Courts Ca.J:1 without deciding the prelirtiinary
1
Issue of maintainability of the suit and the
locus standi of the r:.espondents under _Order
10 Rule 1, Order 14 Rule 2 sub-rule ·2 and
section 9 of the CPC decide the IT1atter to:: cq..use
prejudice to the rights of the petition~r. ··
V. WHETHER the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the Ld. Trial and the Appellate
Courts ·are · err01i.eous,. petver·s·e and caused I
prejudice to the rights of the p'etitioner vyhile
ignoring/per incuriam the law laid down ·by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding
discretionary nature of admissibility of fact
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2)
The Petitioner states that no other petition
seeking ~eave to appeal have been filed by it
.against the impugned final judgment and order
dated Q8.11.2023 passed by the Hon 'ble High

. 55
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No.
208/202.3.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS.OF RULE 5:
The Annexures P-1 and P-: 12 produced along

' .
with the Special Leave Petition are true copies
of the pleadings/ c:locuments, \which formed
part of records of the case in the Court below
against whose order, the leave to appeal is
sought for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS:
That the Petitioners are filing the instant
Special Leave Petition on the following amongst
ot?er grounds:
A. Because the Hon'ble High ·court of Delhi has
gros~ly erred in dismissing the Second Appeal ·
against. n"le impugned .. j~dgment dated

f 0 • •
10.10.2023 passed by Ld. ADJ 03,. Tis Hazari
Courts in RCA DJ. 24/2023 without deciding
··the· question of law and facts in. issue as to
~ < whether a person who ·is .'a land grabber/
·.: trespasser on government .land, can·he/she by

misrepresent himself or herself as .landlord
/licensee ~ithout seeking declaration against
the rightful owner on the basis of forged and
fabricated tittle deeds and w}fether he I she can

I .
by exerc1s1ng cheating, fraud, and
misrepres~nti3;tion enter into rent agreerne;:nts
and seek judgment and decree under O,rder 12
Rule 6 CPC upon admission of certain facts.
B. Because the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed
the appeal :without recording finding of fact on

' I
. .
a seriously disputed and complicated issue of
title in a suit for recovery of possession of
immoveable property, recovery of mesne profit
and permanent injunction. The Hon 'ble High
Court has ignored the important
ruling/ authority by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Anthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi
Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors. Appeal (Civil)
6191 of 2021, on the finding of fact, wherein
the Hon'ble .Court has wen· settled general

~
principles as to when suit for permanent
injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to

)/
file a suit for declaration and/ or possesswn
with injunction as a consequential relief. The
· Hon ble Supreme Court has stated as under:
"11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession,
but his title to the property is in dispute,
or under a cloud, or. where the defendant
asserts title thereto and there is also a
threat of dispossession from the
defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for
declaration of title and the consequential
relief of injunction. Where the title of
plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute
and he is not in possession or not able to
establish possession,· necessarily the
. plaintiff will have to file a suit for
declaration, possession and injunction."
C. . Because. the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
cannot decide on rent dues without deciding
the p:r~liminary. l~gal . iss~e regarding
maintainability of the suit in light of the well.
settled principles and further cannot set
I
.:stringent conditions·. to pay the 1ump sum
·..
I
I
/
I.
amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- to the • land
grabbers/encroachers for passing ·orders on
stay of execution proceedings ignoring the
submissions on facts in issue. Further, the
Hon'ble High Court out of non-application_.of
mind ·ca:n:not ·grant libe~ty simpliciter. :tb .: the
executing court to execute the decree."
D. Because the Hon 'ble High Court has not
considered the fact of preliminary legal issue

. '
(maintainl?,bility of the suit) under Order 1'0
Rule 1, Section 9 and Order 14 Rule 2 sub...:rule
2 and section 9 of the CPC and dismissed the
suit without any judicial application of mind.
Because the Hon 'ble High Court has ignored

.·..._
the true submissions made by the petitioner
before itself and without appreciating true
state of facts and laws made unwarranted

'
observations against the petitioner such as the
petitioner has refused to vacate the -suit

~
premises. The petitioner has only stated that
she will vacate th~. suit property to the rightful
legal .owner which is the government . and not

the encroacher respondent no. 1. The Hon'ble
High . Court has not d~cided the preliminary
·facts in · issue as to whether a land
grabber/ encroacher ;unauthorized occupant
can seek relief for possessiOn, rent dues,
mesne profits, etc. pertaining to land whose
ownership rights v:ests with. the government of
India. The issue has been clarified by way of
averments and submissions 1n. the written

statement before the trial court as well as in
her submissions before the · Han 'ble Court
which has been ignored in the final judgment.
E. Because the court of law cannot intervene and
the land grabbers/unauthorized

help
occupants/ encroachers in getting the decree ""·
for suit for recovery of possesswn of
. immoveable property, recovery of mesne profit
and :pe~manent injunction on an illegal/invalid ,_
rent agreemen~ . per~aining tp land whose
ownership rights are vested in the hands of
government and also when the rent agreement
.: was entered without free consent of the

· ..
petitioner thereby violating the conditions. of a
valid agreement under section 10 of the
Contracts Act, 1872 and therefore is void in
the ey~s of
. law and voidable
.
under secti6n
.· .
· 19
of the Ac;t at the option of the petiti~:mer. upon
whom the fraud was exercised and she had no
means of discovering the truth and her consent
was cau~ed by fraud and misrepresentation by
respondent no. L
F. Because the Han 'ble High Court has failed to
appreciate the rulings g1ven by Han 'ble
Supreme Court in Karan Kapoor Vs Madhuri
Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 496 and S.M Arif Vs
Virender Kumar Bajaj, C.A. Nos.6106-
08/2015, wherein it has been clarified on the
admission of fact under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The Hon 'ble Court stated "power to pass
judgment on admissions is discretionary and
cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The
said power · should be only exercised when
specific,_ c~e-~..r" an~ categorical' admission of
facts and documents are on record, otherwise

the court can refuse to invoke it". Hence the
issue o\ estoppels under Section 116 cannot be
consider at the given facts and circumstances
about the tenant cannot denying the title of
landlord.
G. Because
' .
the Hon 'ble High Court of Delhi has
grossly ignored the law laid down by Hon 'ble
Supren;te: Court on derivative tittle of landlord.
In Vinay Eknath Lad vs Chiu Mao Chen, C.A.
No. '4726 of 2010, the apex court stated "when
the landlord's derivative title is challenged, the

~ .
same has to be established in some form". The
title of the landlord in the present case has
bee,n cha1lenged in the written statement but
the same has not been decided on merits by
the trial court and the appellate courts.
H. Bec~use the Honble High Court erred in law to
consider when the documents are on record to
show that the land pertains to the Government
and therefore· no rent agreement is presumed

. .
to be executed between the parties. Hence
there is no clear admission of tenancy and
'• ..
further trespassers cannot be allowed to :Claim
the amount or rent on behalf of Government
and fl:!.rther when there ·are issues rais:ed in

. · ...
pleadings then issues are required. . ·to be
framed and preliminary issues to be framed on
the maintainability of the suit and locus standi
of the respo·n'dent ~0. 1.
I. That the Petitioner craves leave of the Hon 'ble
Court to urge such further additional
ground(s), at the time of hearing of the SLP,
which have not been specifically taken up in
this SLP.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
The Petitioners seeks interim relief from this
Hon'ble Court on the following amongst other
grounds:
· A. That the Petitioners have a good case on merits
and are likely to succeed before this Hon 'ble
Court.
B. That considering the merits , of the case,
allowing the execution of decree dated
14.08.201~ passed by Ld. Civil Judge ·06, Tis

-···;
l ')
.. :Hazari Courts, Delhi to stand in the interim
: will be a grave miscarriage of justice.

I
7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
i) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the

'
. impugned judgment and final order dated
08.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi ·at· New Delhi in RSA No. 208/2023;
and
. .
ii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon 'ble
Court may deem fit and proper ih the facts arid
circumstances of the case.
8. PRAYljR·FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon 'ble ' I
Court may kiridly be pleased to:
i) Grant an ad-interim ex-parte stay of the
operation of the impugned final judgment and
order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble
High. Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No.
20~/2023;. and ..
ii) Stay the . execution. proceedings · 1n
. ·.· .
EX/470/2020 from decree dated 14.08.2019
partly decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
passed by Ld. Civil Judge 06, Tis Hazari
Courts in .cs SCJ 1508/2018 directing t~e
petitioner to handover the vacant and peaceful
possesswn of the suit property to th~ / , ··,·~-·

/~:~~), ·.
respondent no. 1 and to stay any fu>lireQ~~
r -;?;.:,,
/ {, 1
proceedings emanating from the dec~J~;.,i(\.jlte 4> .. ·:;\";
., "\>. ·~~.l;· ...., ~ ,...\, .. /
,.'/ (~ '-';to .c:..;~ .· -::~.:·-· ;.·
court o f 1aw. / ·.::,~ ~ ,/..<' /
.......,., . ; ~\.~ .;:.:~f,/'·;~.) .:/
'\. .. . . j''·.··.,) /
iii) Pass or grant such
oth er "'· 'l!?:tenm ,. t;·i _, /
\ ... ·. . '.-.:;·;~:.•. /,..
relief/ order/ direction as this Honble C_ourt,.r:(·' _./
. -. ":. (;)\) ,{/''
• ·,, r
I .:. .. If',
may dee:p1 fit and proper in the 1nterest of-··
justice .
. AND FOR TldiS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR HUMBLE

PETITIONERS, AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER
PRAY.
DRAWN.BY:
(Ms. Sanjucta Kabasi)
ADVOCATE
'1'4 ~.
DRAWN ON: Advocate for the Petitioner
FILED ON: 2 'j f.!'/2-02-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT bF INDIA
.· CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SJ?ECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
Ranjeet ... Respondent
CERTIFICATE
Certified 'that the Special Leave Petition is conHned
only to the pleading before the Court below whose
· orderis challenged and the documents relied upon in
those proceedings. Additional facts, documents or
grounds have .been taken relied upon in the Special
Leave .Pet~tion except as Anne:Xure P-10. to P-12. It is
further certified that the copies of the documents/
Annexur~s attached to the Special Leave Petitions are
necessary to answer the question of law raised in the
petition or to make out ground urged in the Spedru
Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon'ble Court. \
'
This certificate is given on the basis of the

instruction's ·given by the Petitioners/ Person
authorized by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed in
support of the Special leave Petition.
FILED 0~~42023
JYtR -:~ AjR:u.P. ~.A~ G.I< 'J£8
Advocate for the Petitioner
..l..•
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .. :·

CIVlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

Subhra Kabasi
Versus
Ranjeet
state on oath as hereunder:

1. That I am the petitioner 1n the above-noted
matter and am well conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the present case and
hence oompetent to swear the insta11.t affidavit.
2. I state that I have read the accompanying SLP
(Page Nos. 61 to 75), (Paras 1 to 8) List of Dates
(Pages B to . H) and I.As. and .understood the
ontents therein and state that the same are
to the best of my knerwledge
3. I state that the annexures annexed· to the SLP
are true and correct copies of their respective

•originals and form part of the record of the
:court below.
~.k~
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified. at New Delhi on this day of
November, 2023, that the contents of paras 1 to 3 of
. the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and based on record, no part of its is false
.. and nothing
' . material has been concealed therefrom.
. DEPONENT
.;'- h s
·· 1 onent WhQ a.
\ \o~nt\ty \he ~ e~ mv pra~ence
diPut \.\. lfV . .).. I .
S\gne 1' ·---."' ·lt'; :/
\. l J:_.fA.. .
·~-
' ··;)
,.t--~
I .... ,
\• '; I, ' I
......
'
"'-'
.....
ANNEXURE P-1
IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SR CIVIL JUDGE,
CENTRAL DISTT. TIS HAZARI COURTS. DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: -

SH.RANJEET
S/0 SH. CHANDER PAL
R/0 J-1044. MANGOL PURl,
DELHI-110083
VERSUS
SMT. SUBHRA KABASI
W /0 SH. MANORANJAN KABASI
R/0 H. NO. 2~, IST FLOOR,
KHYBER PASS, CIVIL LINES.
DELHI-110054. .... DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF

IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY RECOVERY OF'MESNE
PROFIT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: ·
1. That the plaintiff is the law-abiding citizen· of
India and.: ha3 been residing at abovesaid
address with his. family members ... · ·
2. That the plaintiff is co-owner of the built up
property bearing no. 27, 1ST Floor, Khyber
Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-11005;4 (hereinafter

·r'eferred to as the suit property and more
;'specifically ~hown in red colour in the site plan
'annexed with the plaint) by virtue of title
:documents dated 22 . 09.2012. It is submitted

. .
!that the suit property was jointly purchased by
the plain tiff and his mother.
3. That the defendant approached the plaintiff in

'
the month of December, 2014 for taking suit
property on rent for her residence purpose.
4. Tha~·consid.~ring the proposal of defendant, the
plaintiff agreed to let out th~ suit property to
·the defendant for the residence purpose for a
period of. 11 month's

. .
period. Certain other
t~rm.s and conditions were also agreed between
the parties which were duly reduced into

' .
writing in the form of rent agreement dated
06/01/2015 against monthly rent of 13000/-
and the same was duly notarised. The period of
tenan~y was from 06/01/2015 to 05/12/2015
(wrongly typed as 05/12/2016 1n the
agreement). Suffice to mention here that acting
as per terms and conditions as agreed between \

-
·~---
: ~0
the partie~, the defendant deposi~ed a sum of
Rs. 5,000 I- (being equivalent to rent of· one
month) towards refundable security deposit
subject to adjustment of the due, if any.
5. That during the first term, the defendant paid
the monthly rent amount punctually without
any delay or default and even her behaviour
was very good, hence, after expiry.of first term;
on same ·terms and conditions as well as the
'same rate of rent, the plaintiff renewed. the

~
tenancy of the defendant for the second terms
commencing from. 06/12/2015 to. 05/11/16
vide rent agreement dated 12/ 12/2015_.
6. That during. -the. second term~ 'the defendant
-- paid the rent to the plaintiff punctually upto
march, 2Q16 but thereafter the. defendant
started committing serious default, in. payment
of rent because the defendant was paying rent
with considerable delay. The plaintiff requested
the defendant for maintaining the financial but

I
all efforts of the plaintiff turned futile. rather
started misbehaving with the plaintiff arid his

· ..
I : ., '
.'
.. :family members who used to visit the suit
.::property for the purpose of receiving th.e rent
·''from the defendant.
7. That considering the defaulting conduct of the
• defendant, the· plaintiff made his mind and
: conveyed to the defendant very categorically
· that after expiry of second term, he is not
interested to beep 'the defendant in the suit

I
-'
'
property as tenant. After rece1V1ng this
message from the plaintiff, the defendant and
her ' ·family

. . ..
members ·got. annoyed and with
.
intent t'o teach a lesson to the plaintiff and his
· family members started making false and
frivolous complaint against the plaintiff and his
family before the police. · ·
8. That, as all the ·complaints ,of the defendant
and her daughter were proving to be meritless,
hence, n? notion was taken on lj:he complaints
of the defendant due to which defendant got
anno3;ed and ·went to the extent of lodging false
and frivolous complaint even against the police
officials as well as parents of idle plaintiff.

9. That as the plaintiff and his family members
are law abiding citizen and God fearing person,
hence, the father of the plaintiff with intent to
buy piece in the life of his family, has arrived
at an amicable settlement with the defendant
with specific understanding that t~e tenancy of
- the defendant is likely to come an end on
05/12/2016 as per rent agreement dated

\
12/12/2016 but on humanitarian ground,
plaintiffs father . extended the . time till
05/0~/2017 on month to month basis

. '
considering the. fact that . husband of the
defendant was ill. However, it was made clear
to the defendant' that she had to vacate the
suit property. on or before OSj02(2017 ·and
same was duly accepted by the defendant. The
defendant assured, tie plaintiff that she will

'
.
not only vacate the suit property on or before
31/01/2017 but shall also pay the monthly
rent in advance to the plaintiff without any.
delay or default.
10. T}:lf;!.t though the defe~dant was .allo.wed to use
· : :and occ:u,py th~ suit proper.ty ~pto. 31 I 0 1 I 20 17
::but despite this, the defendant showing her
· true colour got issued a legal notice dated

I
07 I 1012016 thereby calling upon the plaintiff
to receive the rent for the r;nonth of October,

: .
'· 20.16. That after receiving the notice and
ongoing through the contents of the said
· notice, it becam<? ample clear to plaintiff that

I
the intention of defendant has turned
dishonest and she has been planning to drag
the plaintiff into un-necessary litigation.
Suffice ho mention hero 'that the daughter of
defendant namely Ms. Sanjucta Kabasi is a
practicing advocate and said ·notice· was got
issued by·
. . . the defendant ·acting under the
:
advice of her daughter. It is important to

. '
mehtion here that the plaintiff never refused to
accept the rent from the. defendant rather it

~
was the precedent condition of the settlement
dated 19/09/2016 that the. defendant shall
pay 'the rent amount in advance, hence,

. .. QLj
.U
neither there was any reason or occasion for
plaintiff for refusing to receive the rent.
11. That as the malafide intention of the defendant
became ample clear to the plaintiff, hence,
without wasting any time, the. pl'?-intiff replied
the said notice dated 07/10/2016 through his
counsel Mr. G.D. Sharma vide reply dated

~
13/ 10/20 16 explaining the true and correct
facts. Through this reply dated 13.j10/2016.

'
plaintiff keeping the settlement. in. mind,
terminated·the month to month tenancy of the
defendant from 05/02/2017 and also called
upon the ¢.efendant to hand over the vacant
and peaceful .physical possession ?f. the suit
property and also made it clear through that
reply that if the defendant failed to hand over
the possession of the suit property on or before

I
05/02/2017 then her. possession will be of a
unauthorised occupant and in that eventuality
defendant would be liable to pay d~mages @
10,000/- per month 06/02/20.17 onwards till

85
the date of handing over possession of the suit
property.
12. That despite receiving the reply dated
·13 I 10 I 20 16 the defendan (failed to act as per

·:-
:;their own contention of notice dated
., 07 I 1012016 and d.id not pay the rent for the
' month of October, 2016 to December, 2016.
·Only due to the repeated request of the
·,plaintiff, the defendant deposited Rs.12,580I-
on 2911212016 and Rs.57701- on
30 I 01 I 20 17 totalling
I
to 118350 I- leaving
balance amount of 216501- with assurance
that the same will be paid by her at the time of
vacating the suit property on 05 I 02 I 2017.

'
13. That as· per the terms .of settlement elated
. ·1010912016 as well as reply dated
1311012016, the defendant was supposed to
hand over ·the. vacant and peaceful physical
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff

' .
and when plaintiff approach the defendant and
asked him to vacate the suit~ property then
defendant's daughter flatly refused for the

... · .....:
same saying that she is an advocate and will
obtain a stay order from. the court and the
plaintiff would not be able to get the prop.erty
vacated from her faniily and further ·stated that
now she will not pay even a single penny to the
plaintiff and will" occupy the same without
paying anything and asked the plain tif( for
doing anything he can.
14. That considering the said act of defenqant and
more particularly of her daughter, the ' plaintiff
tried to resolve the matter amicable with the
defendant and her daughter but nothing;
fruitful could b:e yielded as all the attempts
made by the plaintiff with the help of

---.. '
respectable persons of, the . society arid
neighbours, turned to be futile. It is submitted
that defendant
. :is still pos.sessing
.
the suit.
.
property ir~: the cap~city of unlawful and
unauthorised and unlawful occupant; and has
also not paid anything to the plaintiff towards
occupation 'charges from '06/02j2QJ. 7 till date.

15. That the defendant not only failed to hand over
the vacant and peaceful physical possession of
the suit property but also has not been paying
damages of Rs. 10,000/-per month to the
plaintiff from 06/02/2017 and as on date, the
·.defendant in arrears of damages for the period
commencing from 0610212017 to 0510512018
i.e. 15 months which comes toRs. 150.0001-
apart from Electricity and Water charges.
16. That the malafide intention of th_e defendant is
.·further appar~nt from t~e . fact .that the
defendant has filed a civil suit for permanent
injunction titled as "Suit. Subhra Kabasi

' '
Versus Ranjeet & Ors" which is pending in the
court of Ms. Dhanashree Del-fa, Civil Judge, Tis
Ha san Courts, Delhi and fixed for

·:
0 1 I OS I 20 18 for appearance of the plaintiff
herein.
17. That as defendant has failed to handover the
vacant and peaceful physical possession of the
suit property even after receiving the reply
dated_l3/10/2016 thrSJugh wl-;tich tenancy was

terminated and have still b~en using the suit
property even after termination of bin tenancy
as such as on date the possession 'pf .the

•• 0
defendant in respect of the suit p.ro.perty is
without any right, entitlement or authority,
hence, the possession of defendant, in respect
of the . suit property is. . of· unauthorised

'
occupant,' hence, defendant is· liable to. pay
damages @ Rs: 10000/- per month from
06/02/2017 to 05/05/2018 total of which
comes to Rs. 1,50,000/- as well as
pendentelite and future damages @ 10000/-
per month from 06 I 05 I 20 18 till the date of
handing over the vacant and peacef~l physical
possesswn of the suit property.· The right of
plaintiff to claim damages from defendant 1s
legitimate and justified because if defendant

~
takes similar accommodation In the same

• 0 0
vicinity then· the rent would not be less than
Rs. 10,000 j- per ~outh, hence, :f>laintiff is very
much entitled to get damages from the
defendant.
"'
•• . I...J
. ··'
18. That vide reply dated 13/10/2016, the tenancy
of the defendant stands terminated and this
fact is very much in the knowledge of the
defendant but despite this the defendant has
failed to hand over the · vacant & peacc:ful
physical possession of the s~it property to the
plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get
relief of possession.
19. That· as the defendant and her daughter could
not ·succeed in their nefarious' designs till date,
hence, the defendant got annoyed and put
property on sale through local property dealer.
Though the defendants have n,o right, title and
interest in the suit property but plaintiff has
every reasonable apprehension that the \
defendant may part with possession of the suit
property to third person or anything else. The
defendant is in process to give colour to her
malafide intention as she has been showing
the suit property to prospective buyers but till
date the defendant and her daughter could not
succeed in their nefarious designs, hence,
--------~----------------~---------
plaintiff is also entitled for relief o.f permanent
injunction.
20. That the plaintiff has already exhausted all
.
legal remedies available to him but: nothing
fruitful could be yielded, hence, he has left
with no other
.. efficacipus remedy except
.
to
. . .
approach this Hon'ble Court by way of present
suit,
21. That the cause of action for filing the suit arose
in favqur ,of the plaintiff and against the
defendant when the suit property was let out
by the plaintiff to the· defendant. The cause of
action further arose on each and every date, as
detailed herein above, as and ·when the
defendant started defaulting in payment of
rent. The cause of action· further arose when
defendant was allowed to live in· the suit
property up to 05/02/2017 and again on
07/10/2017 when defendant got issued l~gal
notice and again when it was replied vide reply

\
dated 13/10/201.6 and aga1n when the
tenancy of th~ defendant was terminated. The l'
', ~-~
I
~
...,.,.. __ "'
-
n ..
:·.- j
cause of action further arose when defendant
flatly r~fused to vacate t}J.e same. It further
arose when defendant started showing suit
property to prospective buyers:. The cause of
action is still continuing & subsisting as
defendants-' till date have not vacated same.
22. · That the cause of action for filing present suit

. '
arose 1n favour of plaintiff and against
defendant .at Delhi, parties to the. present suit
resides and works for gain at Delhi and more
particu)arly the suit property is ·also situated at
Delhi, hence, this Hon 'ble Court has territorial
jurisdiction to try entertain and decide the
present suit at Delhi.

I
23. That the suit tor the purpose of court fees and
pecuniary jurisdiction relief for the relief of
Possession of Immoveable Property as per
ann~al rent comes to Rs.60000/- and for the .
relief · of · .Recpvery
. . of .damages
. comes to
Rs.150,000/- and for the relief of permanent
injunction is value at Rs.30 /- upon which
consolidated .court fees of Rs.6755/- has

.
.
...··
already been affixed. The plaintiff further
undertake:s t~ pay such f~r:-th~r court f~es
towards future damages on the amount as may
be awarded/ granted by this Hon ble Court.
In the premises aforesaid and in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case as explained
herein above, it is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to:-
(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction 1n
favour of plaintiff and against defendant
thereby restraining defendant, her heirs,
successors, no~1nees, ass1gnee, agents,

\
attorney or any other person acting on her
behalf from _selling, alienating; ·gifting,
mortgaging, parting with posse·ssion . (full or
part) or from creating 3rct party interest of
·whatsoever nature in respect of the. suit
property i."e. H. No.27, First Floor, Khyber
Pass, Civil Line~, Delhi-54·· more specifically
shown in RED colour in the ~ite plan; and
(b) Pass a monetary decree of Rs. 150,000/- 1n
favour of the plaintiff against the defendant
---
..-c:.--....:.-nm
,/t3
.. ,,
alongwith pend~nt elite .and future damages @
10000/- per month from 06/05/2018 onwards
· till the date of handing over vacant and
peaceful physical .possessiOn of the suit
., property i.e. H.No, 27, First· Floor, Khyber
Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054: and
(c) Pass a decree of possession in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant thereby
directing defendant, her heirs, successors,

. .
nominees, ass1gnee, agents, attorney or any
·other person acting on her behalf to hand over
. ·the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
property i.e. H.No.27, First Floor, Khyber Pass,
Civil Lin·es,· Delhi-110054 along with No Dues
Certificate in respect of the Sf3-id property from
the concerned office of Electricity and water
department to the plaintiff; and \
(d) Award throughout cost of the suit along with
pleader's fees in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant; and
(e) Pass any other or further order which this
Han 'ble Court deems fit, proper & expedite in

. .
favour. of the plaintiff and again:·st the
defendants, iri the interest of justice.
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
.Sd/-
(G.D.· SHARMA)
ADVOCATE.
CHAMBER N0.420, F-BLOCK,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
PLACE: DELHI
DATED: 18/05/2018
VERIFICATION: .
Verified at Delhi on this 18th day of May,: 2018
that the contents of para no.l to 20 of the plaint are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
those of para no. 21 to 23 of the plaint are based on
legal information received 'and believed to be true
'\:... and correct. Last para 1s prayer to this H;on'ble

. .
Court.
Sd/-
PLAINTIFF
IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SR CIVIL JUDGE,
CENTRAL DISTT, TIE HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
. CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:

SH.RANJEET ... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SMT. SUBHRA KABASI ... DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
I, . Ranjeet S j o Sh. ChanCier Pal aged about 32
years, Rjo· J-1044, Mangol Puri, Delhi-110083, do

. . . .
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. The deponent is plaintiff in the abovesaid case
and. is well conversant with . the facts and
circumstances of case and

. .is .competent to
swear this affidavit before this. Court.
2. • The contents of the accompanying suit for '""\
Recovery of possession, arrears of damages
and permanent injunction ;have been drafted
by my counsel urider i.ny instructions and
,. contents of the same has been read over and
explained to me in my vernacular which have
been understood by me and are true & correct
to my Knowledge.
3. The deponent craves leave to this Hon'b'le
Court to read the ·contents of same as part and·
parcel of this affidavit as same are not repeated
herein for sake of brevity.
Sd/-
DEPONENT
- VERIFICATION:
. .
Verified at Delhi on this 18th day of May, 2018
that the contents of my above affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it
is false and nothing material has been concealed

.. '
therein.
Sd/-
DEPONENT
I /TRUE COPY I I
ANNEXURE P-2
. .
IN THE COURT OF MR. KAMRAN KHAN, CIVIL
JUDGE (CENTRAL), TIS HATARI COURTS, DELHI
· CS SCJ/ 1508/2018
IN THE MATTER OF:

.. ·.
RANJEET
S/0 CHANDER PAL
R/0 J-1044, MANGOLPURl
DELHI- 110083 ... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SMT. SUBHRA KABASI
W /0 SH. MANORANJAN KABASI
R/0 HOUSE NO. 27, 1ST FLOOR,
KIHYBER PAAS, CIVIL LINES,
DELHI - 110054 ... DEFENDANT
N!JOH: 21/08/2018
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHLF

OF THE DEFENDANT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH;
PRELIMINARY
..
OBJECTIONS:-
I '•, •
1:. > That the present suit has ·no ~ause of action of
wh?.tsoever in nature and is filed with malicious
int.ention and is devoid of any merits and therefore
is Qiable to be dismissed. The present suit is false
ancJ. frivolous and is filed to extrcict money from the
def~ndant because letting out the property has

' . ,..
remained the business of the plaintiff to extort huge
money from tenants in need. When the need

. ~
remains over they start pressurizing the tenants by
intimidating and physi~al violence m vacate from
the property and thereafter let out the property to
someone new tenants in need to. continue their
illegal business going which is very much clear by
the fact that tb.e Plaintiff and his family has an
alternative residenc.e at J-1044, MongolP1J.r.i, Delhi-
110083 and without any valid cause of eviction
plaintiff is filing the suit. They have beer, continuing

'
such business for long and the defendant is the I
latest victim to their prey. When the defendant
refused to give in to their demands they frivolously
'-..
filed the suit to terrorize and blac~ai~ the
defendant to vacate the property at once. and hence
the suit shall be dismissed.
2. That the defendant h'as been paying rent very
much punctually arid regularly since the lime::of her

0 0
stay in the property. The defendant has: :n:ever
issued rent receipt before April, 2018 and therefore
Ids allegations that the defendant is in arrears of

rent and mesne profits are mere concocted cock and
bull story. The suit stands infructuous as the

"
plaintiff is accepting rent since April 2018 till now

. .
by India Post money order and is also accepting
·huge monthly expenses towards. electricity, water

• ' • • • • • • • 0 •
bill, and maintenance charges among many more
costs by illegal means and therefore is liable for
perjury ."in the court of · law. The ·defendant has
annexed the. receipt. of duly made payments towards
the: property with the written statement. The suit is
filecl:_ to intentionally vex the plaintiff to forcefully
vacate the suit property and to waste the precious

I
ti:rn.e of the court of law to gi-J.e shape to their
nef?-tioP.s means and therefore .is · liable to be

:!
distnissed with h·eavy costs.
3. That the plaintiff .has falsely sworn by. the
affidavit and, therefore, is liable for perJury. The
entire suit is false and fabricated and not even an
iota is true.
.
The whole family
..
of plaintiff, his mother
Saroj and his .father Mr. Chancier Pal are involve.d in
the ~onspiracy of baiting tenants~ in need to let out
the property. Once they fall in their prey, the

L~O ..
plaintiffs extract huge· sum of money by coerc1ng
them to pay water and electricity bill at faulty ~ub
metres at the highest rate of /metre charge. The
mother of the Plaintiff Mrs, Saroj is a manner less
and rowdy woman. She would come all the way from
her residence at Mangol Puri just to trouble the
defendant. Mrs, Saroj would create huge scene in
the lqcality by calling her relatives at the locality of
. House No. ~4 A, Mr. Om Prakash ·and his family,
House No, 27, Mr. Mukesh and his family and
members of House No. 25 and .has also often used
assault on the . defendant to barge inside the
property by kicking the entrance door and pushing
the defendant. Mrs. Saroj has clearly stated to the
defendant that she would throw away from the
property as her brother- in-law Mr, G.D; Sharma is
an advocate (Present Counsel) at Delhi High Court
and she could do nothing against the,m. Mrs. Saroj,
her husband Mr. Chand~r ~al and th~ plaintiff itself
are the relative of Mr. Counsel and all such . false
complaints and suits are filed on the beh~st ;of Mr.
Counsel. Mrs. Saroj used bad language tb. the

(' 1
1.d.
defendant and her family and said this, 11

Main
tumhare ko laat maar k~ ·makaan se nikalungi aur

. · ...
.aga,r kuch kiya to SC/ST Act ~·ain. andar jaaoge "(I
would kick you out from the property and if you

'
dare. to protect yourself, you would be in Jail under
SC(ST Act). Mrs. Saroj has defamed the family of
the: ·defendant in the entire neighbourhood that they
hav~ ehcroached in the property and does not pay ""'·
rent', and also has spread bad name to their
reputation. Mrs. Saroj has also went on to such an

I
extent to say that defendant has alienated/ sold off
the property, Mrs .. Saroj visits the property very
. whenever
often and ..
she visits she creates huge
scene among public by instigating her relatives to
put. pres·sure on the defendant and her family to "-
vacate the property, The plaiptiff and his father. Mr.
Chander Pal· de1iberately used ·to sen.d Mrs. Saroj
because they need the h~lp,. of a lady to lodge false
cases against the defendant and her family which is
actually very. easy for the plaintiff and hence the
suit is frivolous and liable to be dismissed.

4. Thai the defendant's husband Mr. Manoranjan
Kabasi, aged 65 years, is retired from a reputed
position of Senior Section Engineer from the· Indian
Railways and a last stage renal failu~e . patient
undergoing dialysis thrice a week at Max Hospital,
Saket under . Retired

. . Railway
. . . Employee
. .. . Health
.
.
Scheme. To take treatment for her husband the
defendant has no choice but. to take the property as
the location is suitable for her husband to take
dialysis treatment due to good connectivity.
Defendant's husband does not keep good health and
falls ill frequently. The property is so small that it is
very difficult to accommodate a patient and to stay
with the family. The locality is residence of dirty
people who make noise the whole night by playing
loud music and also creates ruckus after getting
drunk. The defendant is very helpless to search for
another accorq.modatiort and that is why' she is
continuing here out of necessity. The plaintiff and
his family ate so· shamelessly money-minded that
they can go to any extent to torment an honest

.r'3.
.
,J
person for extorting rnoney by taking advantage to
theit necessity. The defendant is staying here out of

I
necessity but is also overpaying her stay expenses
to the plaintiff very regularly but the plaintiff does
not seem·' to be . .very satisfied and that is why to

. . .
harass the defendant, the plaintiff is intimidating
'
· the .defendant and her family by the help of their
henchmen relatives who also stays in the same ""'"\
locality to forcefully evict the· defendant out of the
property by lodging frivolous· c~mplaints under
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at PS
Civil Lines. 'fhe plaintiff and his~ relatives has
threatened the defendant that they belong from SC
Community ('V almiki Samaj ') and. so throwing the
defendant and her family in jail for the rest of their '"\
lives is an easy job for them as the defendant
belongs to General Category. To fulfil their nefarious
means, 'the plaintiff, his father arid mother along
with their relatives has also lodged frivolous
complaints under SC/ST Act and harassed the
family of.. defendants by sendi~g police officials
regularly at ·their place.

,..
r.~ .
5. That the property is in a dilapidated condition.
The Defendant and her family are forc:ed to stay in
just one bedroom of 25 Sq. yards at 1st floor of the
property in the smallest area where it is diffic;u_lt to
even move. The property has no separate ·staircase
connecting for ehtry from the roads and ~xit tb the

'
roads. The small roof of the property is always
occupied by the relatives of the Plaintiff of House
No. 24 A, who creates noise on top and also plays
mischief with the water tank overhead by stealing
water and dumping garbage inside it. The water
pumping motor is situated on the ground floor
under debris • and• on t.he top a lid

0.
is
• •
kept to <;over
the motor. The plaintiffs relatives from House no.
24 A, 25 and 27 intentionally· dump garbage inside
the water motor and has damaged many times to
trouble die household of defendant and defendant
has paid much for repayment and is still paying. All
this is happening on the behest of plaintiff, his
father Mr. Chancier Pal and mother Mrs. Saroj. The
plaintiff has made the life of the defendant and tier
family hell. There 1s no separate staircase

-~ r~s
.1. J
'
c_::onriecting to the roof top and even if someone
wants to go l:J.P _for cleaning tank, 4e has to pass
through the property of others who is the relative of
Plaintiff at blouse No. 24.· A. Though the Plaintiffs
relatives at House No. 24 A creates noise and
di~turbance ori the roof top of the defendant but the
defendant are not allowed to pas;s through their
property for . carrying out repairing works at
overhead water tank. The defendant has to pay huge
cost for fixing the tank with lid as plaintiff refuses to
do so even if the defendant pays rent reguJarly. The
heavy repairing cost of overhead tank is borne by
the defendant by calling cleaning staff and
arranging for portable staircase. The room is clogged
with lugg~ges and has no space in it. It is ·""""'\

• f 0 • '
intolerable for any gentleman to say in the property
and the locality. The locality houses anti-social,
element~, vagabonds and . drunkards.. At night not a

. ,·.
wb:rrtan of good character can roam qutside in the

I '• ' ' I o I I
lo.cetJ.ity due to dirty bad crowd. During rainy days,
wa(er leaks from the roof and wets the bedroom and
th~:only bed of the plaintiff and his family members

".l
tot,
apart from damaging other expensive prC?p~rties of
the defendant.
6. That the defendant has no privacy of bathing
as the iron door is rusted badly and has withere.d
down. It is very .shameful that women members of
the. house are taking support of clothes to cover

. the
door. preventing perverts to peep inside the
bathroom. There is no privacy in the property to
take bath as the .adjoining area has no concrete roof
and therefore the neighbours who are the relatives
of Plaintiff have their peep show. The walls of the
bedroom is crumbling down. The kitchen .is in the
worst of condition as the kitchen shelf is
constructed at a height of 5 ft. above the gr'ound
which makes it highly difficult for the defendant to
cook. The defendant is forced to use the support of
log on the. top of bricks at ·four corners or:, :the
ground to co.ok at an appropriate height· wh1ch is
actually very dangerous position to stand and cook.
The rent for property stands not more than 3,500/-

. . ..
per month. The defendant has been .paying huge
sum of money to maintain the property which is the

i ·1 •.,
.. l .
responsibility of the plai:t;1tiff. The defendant has

I
invested huge sum towards mending electricity
connection, fixing wafer meter connection, water
pumping ·motor, fans and has also fixed the water
tank in the suit property. The rent of Rs. 5000/- has
never been spent by the plaintiff towards repairmen
of· the property and on the top of that for their

. .
electricity and water. u,sage the· defendant pay the
amount towards huge bill of the property. That is
how the plain tiff runs his business which is
fraudulent
. ·... and inhuman and therefore the petition
. ' .i_s·.. ~iable to· be dismissed with h~ary costs. The
photos of the bathroom, kitchen and the property is
annexed as Ann·exure A.
..
PARA-WISE REPLY ON MERITS:- "\
1: ;.: That contents in para n;o.l 1s false. and
frivOlous. The Plaintiff and his family are not law-
abiding citizen and tire misusing the law of the
lands for their own ·benefits and to trouble the-:

I
defendant for monetary gain.
2. That the contents in para no. 2 is false
frivolous and has no value in the eyes of law and

hence denied. The land wherein the suit property is
situated belongs to the Central Government. As per
the revenue records of the entire area of 520 Bigha
and 18 Biswa has been mutated in the name of
Central Government and Notified Area Committee
was shown in the occupants column in the
jamabandi according to a letter tinted 26 April,

. . .
2018 by Defence .Estates Officer, Delhi Cantt. The
copy letter ·dated 26 April, 20 18 by Defence ·Estates
Officer is annexed as Annexure- B. The site plan is
blatantly wrong and is not approved by appropriate

. . .
authority. The p"roperty is measuring more than 25
Sq. yards which they. have illegally ex:t~nded near
the open drainage situated at the backside of the
house by the money of the defendant. In this regard,
the plaintiff has asked for an unsecured loan of
Rs.SO,OOO/- from the defendant in the year of 2016
and o_n good terms the defendant has adva~ce~ with
a condition that the loan would be repaid by March,
2017. Moreover, according to Section 17 of
Registration Act, 1908, any non-testamentary
document which creates or transfers rights or

liabilities in· the property of value of Rs .1 00 or
upwards. has. to. be . c·ompulsorily registered. The
documents have not been executed as per the
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and are
executed before Notary Public and therefore is false

..
o o • I o
. .
a·nq,:has no value in the eyes of law and therefore is
not '~dmissible as title documents before any court,
triqunal or appropriate authority. Further, the ~

I
colony where the suit property . is situated is an

i. . :
unauthorized colony, as already mentioned in the
for~'going paras where illegal constructions are
rampant and it is also believed by tire residents that
the colony ·would be demolished in future by the
order of the appropriate authority and therefore
registration of property is not permitted in the area

. ..
and hynce the -title documents- are not valid.
3. That the para no. 3 is false. and frivolous and
. hence deni~d. The plaintiff has advertised the
property online for rent .at quiclq at Rs.SOOO/-. The
defendant visited the locality and refused at once.
The pla,intiff called over _the defendant and meekly
requested her to take the property on rent as they

'')
are suffering financially. The defendant kept their
request on humanity grounds and soon after 6
months of e:t,1te~i!J.g in the . proper(Y. the plaintiff
started vexing her to vacate the proper.ty by the help
of local goons and relatives. who are neighbours of
defendant.
4. . That para no. 4 is false and frivolous and 1s
devoid of merits and hence denied. An unregistered
rent agreement was entered on 06.01.2015 between
Mr. Ranjeet S/o Mr. Chander Pal R/o J-1044,
Mangolpuri, Delhi - 110083 and the defendant Smt.
Subhra Kabasi, regarding the property situated at
blouse No.27, 1st Floor, Fanci Silk Mill, Khyber

\
Paas, Civil Lines, New Delhi - 110054 (hereinafter

. . '
\.,..- 'the suit property1) which is an unauthorized colony
encroached on government
. .
land on . a monthly rent :
. .
of Rs.S,OOO j- per month for the use m residential
purpose. According to the rent agreement, the • 0
tenancy commenced from 06/01/2015 to
05/12/2016 and· the tenancy period may be
extended with the mutual consent of both the
parties, by enhancing the rent which will be

l ·.
. . .!
mutually decided. In all these years Plaintiff never
came
.. at the residence to collect an.d
. instead sent his
lather l'{lr. Chander Pal and Mrs. Saroj, his mother
to collect rent. Signatures of defendant on blank
papers were taken by his father-Mr. Chancier Pal
and by the' help of computer forged on the rent
agreement. The rent agreement annexed in the
plaint is false and has never .been supplied to the
defendant. · Another copy of the rent agreement is
supplied to the defendant which :does not bear the
registration number of the Notary Public. The. rent
agreement was never executed before a registered
notary public inasmuch as the seal of the notary

'
neither contain any valid registration number nor
the plaintiff was present before the notary public

\
when the rent agreement was executed.
Notwithstanding the fact that the document of rent
agreement· was never executed properly, the
agreement of rent and its rental amount was
mutually agreed by both the plaintiff and the
defendant and is still continuing. The signature of
the defendant was secured by forcing her to put

·tt<l
signature on blank papers which are w the· cu,~tody
of Mr. Ranjeet. !he copy of the rent ag~eement 1s
annexed as Annexure C.
5. That para no. 5 speak!s the truth by itself and
exposes the lies of the Plaintiff and hence denied.
The agreemen~ was already · made ·for a peJ;iod
commencing from 06/0.1/2015 to 05/12/2016. If
that is so, then how is the term renewed again for
the same period. And if at all the term is renewed,
where is the 'copy of r~nt ~greem.eni: ·for .the p~riod
commenCing from 06/01/2015 to 06/12/2015. ·The
plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and
therefore the suit has no merits in it.
6. That contents in para no. 6 is· false and
frivolous and a piece of lie and hence is denied. The
plaintiff never received rent from the defendant but
it is his father and mother Mr. ChanCier Pal and
Mrs. Saroj w.ho received rent every month. For
requesting loan to extend the property illegally'· the
plaintiff approached the defendant and taken an
interest free and unsecured

.
loan of Rs. 50,000/-
. ' in
the month of March 2016. The fact is, the

. .
father of
.ll ~
the Plaintiff Mr, Chancier Pal and his mother Mrs.
Saroj made the life' of the d~fendant hell during the
validity of the -rent agreement in the mid of the year
·. of 20.16, . when she approached :electoral office at
Delhi to apply for voter card for her and her family
to participate ··in the com1ng elections. On
23.08.2016, a verification officer from the electoral
officer paid visit to collect necessary documents at
her residence for change of address in the voter
card. Mrs. Saroj was present at that time and when
she came to know about the ·verification by
neighbours, she barged into the plaintiffs residence
and created huge scene before the officer and also
gave ultimatum to her to leave the premises at once.
Mrs. Sarcj has also spoken filthy about her family in -\.
fr~nt of the entire neighbourhood and instigated the
neighbours to put pressure on the plaintiff and her
family to yacate the possession. In this regard, a
co:rnplai:qt was also l.o~ged. on 28/08/2013, on the
next day of her intimidation with the local Police
Station at Civil Lines. The Copy of the complaint

. . .
letter· dated 24 I 08 I 20 16 is annexe~ as Annexure D.
7. That the contents of para no. i is totally false
and exposes the lies of the plaintiff and hence
denied. When the . plaintiff is asserting that the
defendant makes serious default in paying rent
suffering them financially why would the plaintiff
wait for the second term to get over far terminating
the .tenancy. That means Plaintiff is lying white to
- put sham on his misdeeds and hen<?e 1s
inadmissible in the court of law. The rest o•·. the, para
is concocted as usual.
8. That the contents of the ·para no. 8 is·.:false,
frivolous and incorrect and hence is denied: It is

·.·
already mentioned in the foregoing para that the
hooligan reiatives .of the plaintiff are threatenl.·:hg the
defendant and his family to vacate the property. On
09/09/2016, a second complaint was lodged
against Mr. Chancier ?al !1~d Mrs. Sarqj wit~ the

1 O I I I I
local police station at Civil Lines, Ne~ Delhi when
both of the instigatec1 one .pervert by name called
Mr. Mukesh who is the executant of the proper~y as
per the title documents, is a habitual drunkard to
intimidate her daughter and son in the midnight

tt~
•t :\. ~;
\ •t
' '•
when she was away with her hu~band at Max
Hospital, Saket for his dialysis cycle. The
defendant's husband Mr. Manora~an Kabasi 1s a
retired Senior Section Engineer from Indian
Railways and is a last stage renal failure patient. He
undergoes dialysis thrice a week adding 'woes to his
old age condition and does not keep good health at
all times. That night Mr. Mukesh R/o Hn- 27, 1st
Floor, Khyber Paas, New Delhi - 54, got drunk and
started abusing her daughter and son to come out
of the premises with the encouragement of the
closed neighbours and relatives of the landlord
staying just adjacent to the property. At that night,
Mr. M~~esh was also examined .f9r medico-legal
ca~e: at the instance of the o~ficer-i~charge of PS ........,

. . ..
·Civil Lines at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, New Delhi -
11 qos4 and was test~d positive for taking alcohol.
Tht:: · MLC record of the person is lodged with the
Po+ice Station at Civil Lines. ;The copy of the
compl~int letter dated 09/09/2016 and the medical
certificate of Mr. Manoranj an Kabasi is annexed as
Anp.exure E (Colly).
9. That the contents in para no,. 9 .is false and
frivolous and has no validity in the eyes of law and
hence is denied. An illegal settlement was reached

. ~
on· the behest of the fattier of the plaintiff, Mr.
Chander Pal to a police .officer to Delhi Police of an

'
ASI rank, Mr. Sanjay, who forced the defendant to
sign on the illegal settlement that by 31.01.2017,
she has to vacate the property or else the police
officials would nbt extended emergency help to the
. .
defendant and her . family if plaintiff throws ·them
away after the due date. The illegal settlement was
done at Police Station Beat Majnu ka Tila by bribing

.
the police officer and the copy of tile settlement is
I
annexed with the plaint at· last page. Again~t the
behavior of Mr. Sanjay, the Delhi Police Officer, on
19.09.2016 at Police Complaints Authority', Govt. of
NCT of Delhi, and v1a File · No.F.24

I
(636/ 16)/6911/Complt. AC-1, dated 06/12/2016
by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-1,
North District Delhi, departmental action has: been
taken against the ··police Officer and the state:q1e~t is
recorded of the victim. The action taken· ·report has

L: 7
the name of Mr. Chander Pal, the father of the
plain tiff and in the report it is clearly slated that
upon inquiry it was found that Mr. Sanjay has
'int~midat~d Ql). the h<?li.est ~f Mr .. ·Chancier Pal and
thus the settlement agreement is illegal and invalid
and therefore the settlement agreement has no
valicl:it:Y ·.in the eyes of law and therefore 1s

: :...
inadmissible in the· court of law. The copy of the
acti¢n taken report is annexed as Annexure F.
10) That the contents' in para no. 10 is false and
frivolous and is denied. The plaintiff intentionally
started to collect . rent in del'ay to make an
impression that the defendant does not pay. Till
now the relatives of the plaintiff does not come to
coiled rent and it· is the defendant who 1s -'. .
scrupulously paying the monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-
every month via money order through post office
and also .taking care of the .electricity and water bill
every· month. The plaintiff and his family are

'
con;3tantly instigating their hooligan relatives to
torment the defendant and her family. Plaintiffs
relatives who· are staying at House no, 24A, House
. .
t l '6
no. 25 and House no. 27 are also the neighbours of
the defendant' slaying n~xt to .her r'esi'denc~ and that
is why it is very easy for thorn to vex the defendant
by throwing garbage inside water pumping machine
and on the overhead tank by breaking open the lid
to intentionally picking up fights with defendant. To
avoid these, the defendant has spent huge amount
in sealing the overhead water tank out of her own
expenses as the plain tiff refused to do so ·saying he.
would not sp~nd a single penny, if the defendant
desires she can do so out of her own expenses. !he
·.water pumping machine which is situated on the
ground floor become a favourite spot of the relatives

. '
of plaintiff to throw garbage inside it as it is covered
by a huge stone. The photo of the g:arbage dumped
in water pumping motor is annexed as Annexure G:.

11. That the c9ntents in para no.11 is malicious
and false and hence is denied. Mr. G.D. Sharma is
the relative of the plaintiff and his family and ho is·
disrespecting his profession and conduct as an
advocate by giving malicious suggestions arid
advices to the plaintiff and his family to vex the

..
defe±jdant and tier family· for the sake of money. The
counsel is fabricating the facts all by itself without
verifying the truth in it. Ail the frivolous cases have
been lodged against. the defendant are the outcome
of his ill-advice. The fact is, no such termination of
tenancy notice dated 13 I 10 I 20 16 is issued by the
counsel Mr. G.D. Sharma. If at all a notice is issued,

I
why the copy of the termination of tenancy notice is
not annexed in the plaint. The termination notice is
not served and therefore-· the tenancy is still
continuing.
12. ·That the contents of the para no. 12 is false,
fabricated, incorrect and is misguiding the court of
law with false and fabricated 'facts. to :prejudice the
suit in their favour. As it is already,mentioned in the ...--.,
foregoing paras that the plaintiff never came to
collect rent and instead sent his father Mr. Chander
Pal and mother Mrs, Saroj to collect rent. As we all
know, no,te ban declared by Prime Minister
Narendra Modi from the midnight of 8 November,
2016. Resultantly, there was severe cash crunch in
the nation which continued for the next six months

L
'·
before reaching to normalcy. Before this period, the
prevwus month, the old currencies were' 1n
circulation and the rent along with electricitY. and
water bill was paid to the family of Plain tiff. ·Mrs.
Saroj demanded the rent along with >other
maintenance charges during the period of not~ ban
and the defendant issued cheque no. 366.070 dated
26-12-2016 of Rs. 12,6801- including rent,
electricity and water bill in the name of Mrs. ~aroj

~
0
1 ° 0 o I 0
0
and not Mr. Ranjeet, the plaintiff as th~ para is the
plaint falsely states. In the next month, on 25.:.01-
2017, another cheque was issued of cheque. no.
366072 dated 25-01-2017 of Rs, 5770/- again in
the name of Mrs. Saroj towards the rent and
electricity bill as the water bill comes after every 2
or 3 months or may be monthly. There is no balance
amount which is left as alleged of Rs. 1650 I- which
the defendant could not understand how the
accounts are shown. Instead, it is the plaintiff who
has to refund the defendant of the illegal
maintenance charges and the loan of Rs'. 50,000 I-
which was·usurped by him all these years. The copy

of the account statement of honoring of cheques is
. annexed as Annexure M.
13. · Th.at the ·contents of para no. 13 is false and
·.fabricated and is denied. As alrei:tdy mentioned in
the foregoing ·paras, the plai~tiff and his relatives
stopped collecting r.ent int~ntion.ally to ~ake an

'
inJ.pression that the defendant d~es not pay rent. It
is the father and mother of the plaintiff Mr. Chancier
Pal and Mrs. Saroj who repeatedly threatened the
defendant to vacate the property even if they are
duly accepting rent and other maintenance charges
and against forceful dispossession every citizen of
India has a right to seek protection from the court of
law. The suit is a sham to protect their interest. The
property . has been used for a long time to . . . . . ,_
accommodate tenants in need and to mint money. A
fresh complaint is lodged against their intimidation
with local. police station at Civil Lines and also
' proper repre.s.en~?-tion is made wjth Gommissioner of

' , 0 • •
Police, Delhi Police and Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Delhi Police by complaint letter dated
15.03;20 18, The copy ·.of the c·omplaint letter

. ..·.
15.03.2018 and service of proof 1s annexed as
Annexure 1 (Colly).
15. That the c'ontents of para 14 is false and

. .
frivolous and denied .. .The plaintiff and .his family
members are very clever and for dispossessing the
defendant from the property they can go to any

.
extent towards defaming the defendant and Ids
family. Mrs. Saioj has threatened many a times that
Mr. G.D .. Sharma, the present counsel in the

.
suit
..
is
her brother-in-law and he is very expert in thr~wing
out tenants
.
illegally from the possession and that
'
is
why the counsel is more interested in the present
suit. On many occasions false cases have~: been

·.·
lodged under SC/ST Act upon the advice of Mr> G.:b. . .
-'"""" Sharma because as an advocate he knoV;rs that
upon even lodging a false complaint a person who
does not belong from SC / ST community mm get
arrested. Like Mr.. Sanjay, .. against whom
departmental action have boon taken. by the Higher
Authority of Delhi Police, Plaintiff and his father and
mother Mr. Chander Pal and Saroj has tried to bribe
police officials to throw the defendant and tier

fa:rp.ily out of the property by lodging false FIR under
SC/ST Act which the concerned police has also
mentioned ·to the defendant, Mr. G .D. Sharma is
acting more as protector for the plaintiffs than
counsel and that is why he is involved m every such
illegal activities with the plaintiffs under the garb of
being an advocate which is very disrespectful to the
lawyer community. The tenancy is still continuing
and the rent is accepted by· money eider since April
2018 till by the plaintiff as the delivery records are

'
. . .
available with the Post Office Mango! Puri, N· Block,
whose staffs are repeatedly m touch with the
defenc:Iant. There is no issuance of .rent receipt for

. . .
rer1:t: amount along with elect~icity a_nd water bill
·pa~ci before April, 2018 and that is why it cannot be _....,
established
..
that the defendant
' is in arrears of rent
because even if .the" defendant is in arrears of rent
si:qce 06/07/2017 why the suit for possession was
not filed at that time when the cause of action
arose. It 1s very shocking that how the plaintiff
could lie on affidavit in the court of law that the
defendant 'is 1n arrears of rent when records and

:·" ..
proofs are available with the government
Department.
15. That the contents in para no. 15 is false and
frivolous and hence denied. The para is just

. ~
repetition of the foregoing paras of the plaint. The
plaintiff could not

.
stand
.
the fact that voteor cards
and adhaar cards are issued to the defendant and
his family members. and that is why started
troubling the defendant by various nefarious means
with the help of his hooligan and drunkard relatives
situated in the locality of House No. 24 A; Mr. Om
Prakash and his family House No. 27, Mr. Mukesh
and his family and members of House No, 25, to
vacate from the property. The property when it was
handed over to the defendant on rent was already
damaged. The defendant by the' help of her

'
husband's meagre monthly pension made 'many
repairmen! works from electricity connection to
water connection. The water connection meter was

I
fixed at the rate of Rs.lO,OOO/- by taking the

...
amount from the defendant which was ;' :ne:ver
refunded back·. D~fendarit ha~ invested a huge .~urn

'
./ "
·-
of money towards the property and the plaintiff and
hi~ family is so audacious that even after extracting

. .
.so much of money illegally by t~e defendant their
lust for money is not over and that is why coming
up with fabricated accounts which has no proof and
is alSQ· believed to be false by them and shamelessly

. ·· ..
lying. on oath .in the. court of law: without any fear of
perjury. Their level of mentality proves their
audacity and g~eed for, money and that is why the

:· ..
plaintiff came up with the suit; The defendant is not
'
in. :: arrears of rent and the: allegations are
int~nti9nally levelled by the plaintiff because no rent

.,
receipt is issued by his family members Mr.
Chancier Pal and Mrs .. S~roj between 0610212017 to
06 I 04 I 20 1 ~ and therefore by this way they believe
that they can impute allegation that defendant does
not pay rent. When it cannot be shown by material

. . .
doc~rrients .that rent receipt were issued by 'him
before
. the
.
period shown as arrears then this cannot
·be established that defendant is in arrears of rent,
Moreover, in~ ~f these period. d~ting her stay since
0610112015 till now as a tenant the defendant has

L2G
paid Rs. 1,60,000j:- towards-the rent at the riite of
Rs. 5,000 /per month exc-luding water and ·electricity
bill which was charged at the rate of Rs.l2,000/-
month and sometimes Rs.lS,OOOjmonth, which if
calculated altogether comes around R~.5,85,000 I!.
excluding loan of · Rs.SO,OOO /- and other
maintenance expenses which is 10 limes more than
the valuation of property which is as per the false
title- deed is valued at Rs, 1,00,000/-. More than
the valuation of property, the defendant has
invested the amount in the property and therefore
the defendant is more· than the tenant is an owner .

of the property. In the light of the above
submissions it could be stated that the petition is

,
· also and frivolous and exposes the greed of money of
the plaintiff and his fam~ly.
16. That the contents in para no. 16 1s admitted
that the defendant h:;::ts filed a s·uit for mandatory
and permanent injunction in the· court of Ms.
Dhanashree De~a, (Central), Civil Judge, Tis Kazan,
of Civil Suit No. SCJ 3479/2018 ~nd 211_7 /2018 for
interim relief against Mr. Ranjeet, Mrs. Saroj and

Mr. ;chander Pal which' 1s pending on interim
appl~cation arguments and whose next date of
hearing is also on, 21/08/2018 coinciding with the
present suit the fact· of which was intentionally

I
suppressed by Mr. G .D. Sharma, the counsel to
prejudice the matter in its favour. In that suit the
plaintiff and his family were .ready to compromise on
ari undertaking that they would not dispossess the
·. defe:J;ldant and her family and here the scene is
altogether different when the notice was served
maliciously to vex the defendant and his family.
Therefore the suit is filed frivolous~y and hence has
no merits and therefore liable to be dismissed.
17. That the contents in para no.\ 17 is utterly
false, frivolous, concocted and totally denied, As
already mentioned in the foregoing para, the
tenancy-. was never terminated and the plaintiff and
his family members are still collecting the rent
directly and indirectly among other illegal expenses.
Moreover, in all these period . the defendant since
06/01/2015 till now has paid Rs. 1,60,000/-
towards rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/per month

excluding water and electricity bill which was
charged at the rate of Rs. 12,000'/month and
sometimes Rs. 15,000 /month, which if calculated
altogether comes around Rs. 5,85,000 j- excluding
loan of Rs. 50,000 j- and. other maintenance
expenses which i.s 10 times more than the valu~tion
or property which as per the false title-deed is
valued at Rs. 1,00,000/-. More than the valuation of
property, the defendant has invested the amouht in

. .
the property and therefore the defendant i·s: niore
than the tenant is an owner of the property. In a
retaliation to throw the defendant out of the
property, the plait:J.tiff and his farn.ily. stopped taking
rent from April, 2018 onwards. In the montJ::l of
April, the father of the ·plaintiff Mr. Chancier Pal only
collected the electricity bill of Rs. 630 I- of due date
10 April, 2010 by cash and did not issu~ receipt as
usual. Money order was sent of Rs. 3,000 excluding
an exchange of Rs. 250/- of EMO PNR NO:
029303180424021621 dated 24/04/2.0~8 to Mr.
Ranjeet. Thereafter, rent amount of Rs.' 5,000/- was
sent per month on money order to the plaintiff on

d.ifferent dates on 22/05/2018 of EMO PNR NO:
029303180522.021702, on .25/0E?/2.018 of EMO
PNR NO: 020195299116758090, on 30/07/2018 of
EMO P.NR NO: 029290329290905. All these
amounts are duly paid by the concerned post office
at .Mangolpuri 'N Block and the delivery status were
informed to the defendant on pho;ne. A complete
delivery record -is available with the post office and it
is very shocking that the plaintiff is lying boldly on
affidavit without any fear of criminal action. In that
case the cause of fiction stands defeated and
infructuous as the plaintiffs are duly accepting rent
from April, 2018 till the month of July. The rent is
co1lected at 28th day of every month and not on 05lh
, of every month as frivolously stated. Thus, the -....,

• • 0
prayer of the plaintiff that the .Plaintiff is in arrears
of rent from 06/02/2017 to 05/05/2018 stands
defeat~d. and infructuou_s and the. suit shall be
dismissed with heavy cost. Mor~over, the defendant

I • ' I I I I
has: been paying water and electricity bill since
Apr.il, 2018. On 22/05/2018, wafer bill of an

I
am)ount of Rs. 1477.60 of the bill generated on

24/04/2018 of New KNO No, 3514282840 1s paid
through online mode on the behest of the defendant

~
by her counsel Ms, Sanjucta Kabasi, which was

. '
intentionally negkcted by the plaintiff so that the
supply of water is c.ut on default o~ payment. The
latest bill was paid towards water consumption on
27/05/2018 for an amount of Rs. 2204.01. On

-...- I
27/05/2018 on-electricity bill of CA NO:
. .
60015542404 of Rs. 6040, on 28/06/2018 of Rs.
0520 and latest on 29/07/2018 of Rs. 5860 was
paid towards electricity consumption again by

'
online mode. The total amount

. . which 1s paid for the
last 4 months comes down to a whopping amount of
Rs. 45,101,60/-. This is very shocking that how the
bill amount of an unauthorized colony is coming so
expensive. This amount includes the illegal us~ge of
water and electricity connection by the neighbours.
Plaintiffs relatives who they term them as
'respectable members of the society' are regula!-ly
involved in diverting pipeline for usage at fre·e of
cost. This is the way the defendants are financially
tortured and tormented because they are person of

~) l,
. . '
righteous and high moral values and also a member
of General Category. This shows the plaintiff has no
mQral values, self-respect of their own and are
person of lower integrity. The father of the plaintiff,
Mr. Chander Pal always collected rent in the end of

the month to· usurp .the lump slim ·amount of rent
and the electricity and water charges. It is falsely
stated that the amount is collected on the 5th or 6th
day::.of .the month in advance. The suit is in an

. :>.
.. . . .. .
'l:l~a:uthorized colony under the control of Central
Goyernment where the registration of the property is
not permitted. 'Tile. piaintiff and his mother Mrs.
Satoj are the unauthorized title holders/ owners of
the: property. According to the false title deeds the
property is purchased at the nominal value of Rs.
1, 00.000/- only and the area of the property is just
25' Sq. yards. The ~ax'imum rent which could be

'
flxed in the 'already damaged property is Rs. 3,500/-
and not more than that. The plaintiff is an
illegitim~te OW11er of the· :property as the . title
documents are not executed as per the Registration
Act,· 1908 i.e. to be compulsorily registered. The

',
locality comes under 'Jam.abandi' under the
possession ofCentral Governmen"t' arid sit~ated .next
to the Jhuggi at 'Valmiki Basti' at Khyber Paas

. .
which falls under 'H' category of Delhi colonies. The
plaintiff and his family members deliberately did not
collect rent for the last 4 months and therefore the
prayer of the suit that the defendant is in arrears of
rent is liable to be dismissed. The copy statement of
the account by which the bills are paid online and
the receipt of the money order is annexed as
Annexure J (Colly).
·. 18. That the contents of the para no, 18 is false
and frivolous and hence is denied. Tenancy

. . is still
continuing as the. plaintiff is accepting rent and the
~ dues are all cle~red towards electr~city and water

. .
usage as already mentioned in the foregoing paras.
Therefore, the s~it has no validity and hence it shalt
be dismissed with heavy costs .

..
19. That the contents in para no, 19 1s false,·
frivolous, concocted and denied totally. This is the
way the family of the plaintiff and lie himself are
defaming the defendant ·and her family upon the

..\3:, .
~ .. .; .
.·.
maliqious instructions and advise of Mr. G.D.
Sharma, the counsel who is the relative of the
plaintiff and is interested in the property, to put

i
pressure upon the defendant to vacate the property.
Nobody· would be interested in purchasing the
property which is situated in a Jhuggi and is an
unauthorised colony which are in the priority list of

I
the central government to get demolished. A civil
suit of defamation would be filed against the
plaintiff, his mother, Mrs ... Saroj and father Mr.

. .
Chander Pal for spreading rumour in the entire
·.locality to· injure the. reputation of the defendant and
his family thereby assassinating their character.
The defendant ·J.s a reputed

. and -well
. educated
woman having Masters Degree in, Political Science
from Calcutta University. Her husband Mr.
Manoranj an ~abasi is a reputed retired railwaj
employee from the post of Senior Section Engineer
at Indian Railways unlike the greedy and illiterate
family of Plaintiff and himself. Looking at the
reputation of defendant's husband, the plaintiff at
once had given the property on rent by giving

invitation to Defendant over phone. Plaintiff and his
'
family have no limit and control to their greed: and
that is why all th,ese

'
years without creating
.
any: fuss.
the plaintiff has extorted huge sum of money 'from
the defendant to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- which
is ten times to the value of property. Now\they
jumped intq th.e bandwagon to· throw the defefl:d:ant
out when they realized·. that they have .. created a
mistake by ext:r~acting this much of money and
therefore to save their skin from legal action they
are bringing the:s·uit to evi~t.the 'clefenda~t on false
grounds and to bait another rich cock to their prey.
This is the family business of Plaintiff and his family
going for generations and they are taking the
advantage because they belong from SC Community
and which they have taken as granted and therefore
the relief of permanent injunction could not be
granted.
20. That the. contents in para no. 20 is false and
frivolous and hence denied. The plaintiff was n~ver
·. entitled to any remedy as no cause of action has

f~
...:
ever ansen. He has filed the present suit to misuse
the law ofthe land to blackmail the defendant.
21. That the contents in para nO'. 21 is false and
frivolous and hence denied. There was no cause of
action in favour of the plaintiff as already mentioned
in the . foregoing paras. The defendant is not in

. '
arrears of rent from 06/02/2017 to 05/06/2018 as
already established m the foregoing paras by the

~
support of statement of account and money order
receipts, The tenancy was never p~rmitted as the
rent and other expenses are still collected from the
defendant. No termination of tenancy notice dated
13/ 10/20 16 was ever issued and the same is not
attached with the plaint. Entertaining the present
suit is waste of time for the court. The suit is filed to "'""',
seek vengeance from the defendant and to harass
them financially and mentally and hence the suit is
, liable to be' dismissed with heavy cost.
22. That the contents of the para No.22 is mater of
record and hence need no reply.
23. ~fJ:1:at the contents in para no ..23 in false and
fr,ivolous and hence 1s denied .... Th~ suit is wrongly

valued and there is no relief which is accrued to the
plaintiff due to .ho cause of action and hence the
suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy .cost.
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the true and honest
submission with valuable material on record, it is
humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court m,ay be
pleased:-
(a) To dismiss . the suit on the grounds·. of· 'being
frivolous arid vexatious to the defendant and to
cause irreparable loss to . the reputation and
financial standing of the defendant and also to
waste the time o~ the court for being come up

. ..
with no . cause of action to misuse· : the
proceedings of court in his own benefit.
(b) The Hon 'ble court may be pleased to dismiss
the suit on twice the amount of cost as asked
in the friv,olous relief to keep away such kind's
of dishonest litigants· to m1suse the
proceedings of court and the law which w_ould
be deterrent for fraudulent persons like
plaintiff to vex innocent parties in the hands of

law and would also~ be pleased to initiate
criminal action to swear facts which in their
knowledge were untrue in the ,affidavit and to
the Ho'n 'ble Court.
Any such order as the Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to pass in the interest of Justice,
equity and good conscience and for this
humbleness, the defendant shall ever pray.
Date: 20.08.2018
Place: New. Delhi
Defendant
Through
Counsel
Ms.· Sanjucta Kabasi
'
..
·,
Enrollment No.D/540/2015
Seat No.78, Ba;r R0om-l, Civil Side,
Tis Hazari D.istrict Courts, New Delhi-110054
Mob:8700608356
'
I /TRUE COPY I I
ANNEXURE P-3
IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SR CIVI'L JUDGE,

CENTRAL DlSTT. TIS HAZARI COURTS. DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO.l508 OF 2018
·.IN THE MATTER OF: -

VERSUS . .
APPLICATION. UNDER. ORDER

.
XII ."RULE 6 READ
WITH SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFF FOR PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT ON
THE BASIS OF ADMISSION.
1. That the above noted case 1s pending.
adjudication before this Hon'ble Court and is
now fixed for 14/11/2018.

.
2. That the plaintiff has. filed the present suit
against the defendant for Recovery of
possession, arrears of damages and perm'anent
injunction.
3. That after being served with the summons of
.
the present suit, the defendant herein has· filed
a detailed written statement thereby denying
all the allegations

. .. levelled. against her and
. .has
prayed for dismissal of the present s~i~,..

- .•
·I)
4. That from perusal·of the written statement it is
apparent dear that defendant has neither
disputed the execution of the 'rent agreement
dated 06 I 0 1 I 20 15 for the period commencing
from 06101/2015 to 05112/2015 as well as
~he .rent agreement dated 12/ 12/2~ 15 for the

..
:··period commen~ing from Ot;)./1~/2015, thereby
::ffieaning that the defendant has admitted the
. relationship. of the landlord and tenant.
5. • The plaintiff has made specific contention 1n
.· '.·the para no. 11 of the plaint that the notice
. dated 07/ 10/20 16 was duly replied by the
' plaintiff vide his reply dated 13/10/2015 in
'that reply the .PL:~.intiff has made specific

I
contention regarding the termination of the ~,
tenancy of defendant w.e.f. 05/02/2017, It is
also important to mention here that through

. .
reply dated 13110/2015, defendant was called
.upon. to hand over the vacant and peaceful
physical· possession of the suit property and
also m,a¢le .it dear through that reply that if
defendant failed to hand over the possession of

. .
the suit' pto'perty on or be.fore 05/02/2017
then her possession will be of a unauthorised
occupant and in that eventuality defendant
would be liable to pay damages@ 10,000/- per
month 00/02/2017 onwards till the date of
handing over possession of the suit property.
6. That in the written statement the defendant
has also admitted the rate of rent 'to be Rs ..
5000 I- p~r rnontJ::.
7. That in his written statement, the defen~ant
has admitted the receipt of the said reply but
made a vague contention

.
that no
. .specific
notice was s·ent by plaintiff for termination of
tenancy. but· has a~mitted tha~ through reply
'- dated 13/10/2015 tenancy of the defenda:t;1.t
was termi!fated. Thus, it is clear that the
possession of the defendant in respe~t · of .the
suit property from 05/02/2017 onwards is of
an unauthorised occupant not of a tenant.
8. That in view of the specific admission made by
the defendant regarding relationship of
landlord & Tenant, rate of rent and also about

\14\
. ..::- . . '' .
:;the receipt of reply dated 13./10 /2CH6, the suit
:of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed partly to
.; the extent of relief' of possession and recovery
; of arrears of rent, hence, the same may be
.·decreed.
9. :; That In view of the admission made by the
defendant now nothing is left to be proved for
getting the relief of possession, hence, the suit

I
of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed partly.
10. That the applicant/plaintiff has good prime
facie. case and balance ..of convenience also lies
in favour of the. plaintiff.
11 .. That the present application 1s being moved
bonafidely.
In the 'premises aforesaid and in v1ew of the "-
facts and circumstances of the · case explained
herein above, it is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Han 'ble Court rr\ay kindly be
pleased tow
(a) Partl:y: decree the suit of the plaintiff to the
extent of relief of possession; and

(b) Pass any o~her or further order or r~lief Vvhich
. .
this Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper: and
expedite in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant, in the interest of justice. ··
·.. .; 0
''•, I
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
Sd/-
(G.D. SHARMA)
ADVOCATE
CHAMBER NO. ·420, 'F-BLOCK,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
PLACE:-DELHI
DATED:-06/09 /2018
·'
IN THE HON BLE COURT OF SR CIVIL JUDGE,
1
CENTRAL DISTT. TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO.l508 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: -

VERSUS
SMT:
. SUBHRA. KABASI ... DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT.
I,.Ranjeet S/o Sh. Chancier Pal ag~d about 32-
years, .R/o J" 1044, Mango! Puri, Delhi-110083, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

\ .
1. The deponent is plaintiff m abovesaid case and
1s well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of case and is competent to
swear this affidavit before this Court.
2. The contents of accompanying application U j o
XII Rule 6 R/w section 151 CPC on behalf of
the plaintiff have been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions and contents of the
same has been read over and explained to me
in vernacular manner which have been

• ' • • • 0
understood by :m·e a:rld same are true "correct
to my knowledge.
3.. The contents of same may .k~ridly (;>e. read as
part& parcel of this affidavit as same are not
repeated herein for sake of brevity.
Sdi-
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on 06.09.2018 that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct
to my knowledge and no part of it is false, and
nothing material has been concealed there frorri·.
::sci;- . ·
',.
DEPONENT
I /TRUE COPY I I
ANNEXURE P-4
IN THE· COURT OF MR. RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN
CIVIL JUDGE (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
CIVXL SUIT NO.l508 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: -
VERSUS'
· SMT. SUBHRA KABASI ... DEFENDANT
REPLY ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XII

RULE 6 OF CPC
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1. · That the main suit has no cause of action of
whatsoever in· nature. and .is filed with malicious
int.ention and
. is devoid of any merits' and is liable to
be· dismissed: The suit ±s filed to gain undue
advantage out of the Defendant and has no cause of
action as already mentioned in detail in the Written
Stp.ti~ent. When the Plaintiff has realized that his

' ' '
lit!S ·9-.re exposed and caught red handed in the court
of law he desperately filed the Application U 10 12

. '
Rule 6 to save his skin from legal persecution. Thus,
wh~n the suit itself does not disdose any cause of

; .
action and is liable to be dismissed then the
Application U/0 12 Rule 6 is not maintainable.

2. That the present Application 1s filed
maliciously to misuse the power of the court and to
intentionally terrorize the Defendant to give in to
their illegal de!r,lands. That in the Written "Statement
the Defenclant' has already proved that the Relief
sought in the ·present · suit is infructuous and
therefore cannot be granted. The Defendant ties also
proved in her written statement that the contents of
the suit is a bundle of lies fabricated and forged to
torment the Defendant in the hands of court
proceedings and also to humiliate and harass the
Defendant in the society with the intention to extort
lump sum amount. The case of the Plaintiff has
miserably failed and his lies are exposed before the

'
Hon 'ble Court. Therefore, the suit is liable ·to be
dismissed with heavy compensatory · cost~ for
causing severe mental .agony to the Defendant,·
REPLY ON MERITS:-
1. That in reply to para no, 1 it is stated that the
averments .made ·therein

. is a .matter of record .and
hence needs no reply.

t4/
2. That in reply to para no. 2 it is stated that the
averments made therein is false, frivolous and
vexatious and is vehemently denied. The Defendant
wa$ never in arrears of rent and the tenancy is still
continuing. ·'fhe Plaintiff is surreptitiously accepting

.
I
. .
rent every month by money order and without any
fear of perjury lying on affidavit in court that the
Defendall;~ is not paying r~nt regular.ly, Apart from

..
the .collection of rent, the Plaint.iff is El;lso charging
I • • • 0 o 0 I
hefty· electricity and water bill every month. It is
pertinent.
to mention that the
I
Defendant has
rerr:1.~1n1ng no dues to electricity and water
con$Umption till date along with J:tO dues in respect
of payment of rent.· The copies of the payment of
latest electricity bill, water bill and rent receipts is ..

..
annexed as Annexure-1.
3. That in reply to para no. 3 if is submitted that
the Defendants are not in dues of payment of rent,
electricity, water and other essential supplies. The
Plaintiff has concocted and fabricated the facts to
harass and humiliate the Defendp.nt, in para 17 of
the written statement the Defendant have in detail
·' .
1/Y-<(; ..
mentioned the calculation of amount incurred by
tier towards the rental charges and annexed copies
of rent receipts and bank statement of all the
payments done by her with regard to the dues
alleged in the relief sought. Till now the Plaintiff has
extorted Rs. 6,00,000/- towards rental dues and
other essential supplies dues which ·6 times the
value of the property of Rs, 1,00,000 j -.
4. That the averments made in pa:ra no. 4 is false,
frivolous, vexatious and is vehemently denied. To
support the statement, the defendant is quoting the
exact excerpts of relief sought in the suit, which is
as follows: - ·
(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunc~ion In
favour of plaintiff and against the defendant
thereby restrain,ing defendant, · her heirs,
successors, nominees, assignee, agents,
attorney or any other person acting on her
behalf from selling, alienating, gifting,
mortgaging, parting with possession of .(full or
part) or from creating 3rd party inter:est of

'j.L.I,q
... J· .. J
whatsoever nature in respect of the suit
·:property i.e. H.N.27, 1st Floor Khyber .....
·)b) Pass a monetary decree of Rs. 150,000/-
in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant
along with pendenteiite end future damages
@10,000/month from 06/05(2018 onwards till

. .
i ··. th~ date of handing ove:r the possession of the
:' suit property ...
.. (c) Pass a decree of possession in favour of
plaintiff and against the defendant thereby
restraining defendant, her heirs, successors,
nominees, assignee, agents, attomey or any of
h~r .person. acting on her .behalf along wit~ no
dues certificate in respect of the suit property
· from the concerned office of electricity and .-_,
water department to_ th.e plaintifr
T.hu~, the Plaintiff is seeking possession of the
suit
. . property on the.. grounds of non-payment
of rent and non-payment of essential supplies
dues. In para graph 17 of the written
statement the Defendant in-detail have
annexed the bank statement from which the

. !
dues are paid. The bqnk statement shows the
plaintiff and his family stopped taking:: rent
from ApriJ, ~,018 onwards, in the month:· of · ·

. · ...
April., the father of the plaintiff Mr. ~bander
Pal only collected the payment of electricity bill
ofRs. 6301- of due date 10 April, 2018 by cash
and did· not issue rec·eipt ··as· ·usual. Money
order was sent of Rs. 5,000 ·excluding. an
exchange of Rs. 250 I- of EMO PNR NO:
029303180424021621 dated 24/04/2018 to
Mr. Ranjeet. Thereafter, rent amount of
Rs.5,000 I- was sent per month on money
order to the plaintiff on different dates on
2210512018 of EMO PNR NO:
020303180522021702, on 2510612018 of
.EMO PNR NO: 029195299116758090, on
30/07A2018 of EMO PNR NO:
029299329290905. All these amounts are duly

. .
paid by' the .. concerned post office at
Mangolpuri . N. Block and the. delivery status
were informed to the defendant on phone.
Therefore, the averments made in relief 'no. (b)

; .
:. l~l
· that the defendants are 1n dues s1nce
; 06 I OS I 2018 has been proved false as the rent

'
receipt annexed in the written statement shows
the Plaintiff has been receiving rent since
2410912015.
With respect to relief no. b, it is submitted that .
.no dues related to electricity at id water
expenses are lying on the head of defendant as
all payments are done · successfully and a
payment summary to .this ~ffect has been

. .
annexed 1n para no. 17 of the written
statement. It has again exposed the dangerous
lie of the Plaintiff and has exposed the
intention of the Plaintiff to vex .the Defendant.
Since, the Relief hay failed and is supported -.,
without any valid evidence there is nothing left
in the suit to be maintainable. The plaintiff has
miserably failed to show any cause of action in
the suit and therefore the suit shall be liable to
be dismissed at qnce.
With .respect
. to the contents .of the .rest of the
para it. is. pertinent to . mention that the

defendant has not at all admitted the validity
.
of the rent agreement in her written statement.
It is the false assumption and presumption of
the Plaintiff that the Defendant is not disputing
the execution of ·the rent agreement.' The
defendant has strongly challenged t.he vEi.lidity

i
of the rent agreement and has also mentioned
1n the written statement that the rent
agreement. was never executed properly ·by
registering .the same under Indian Registration
Act. In para no. 2 of the Written Statement, the
Defendant has also challenged the ownership
of the p:rope:rty in her writt~p. ~tatement which
actually belongs to Central Government by
annexing the reply as to the real ownership of
the land by Defence Estates Office which is
annexed as Annexure B 1n the written
statement.
5. That in reply to para no. 5 it is stated that the
avennents made therein is false, frivolous and
vexatious and is vehemently denied. 'That in para
no. 11 of the written statement not a single sentence

substantiates the fal:~e presumptions of the
Defendant. In para no. ll.th~ de!end~t has clearly
stated :that she has not received any termination
notice ~ssued by the Plaintiff. Till date the Plaintiff is
receiving monthly amount without raising any
protest, The Plaintiff has remained silent about the
receipt of payment rent and electrici~y supply dues.
In the entire Application he has chosen to remain
silence on this issue and has not disputed the fact
that he is receiving rent. The conduct of the Plaintiff
is admission of the fact that he is accepting rent and
other charges and .therefore has admitted to the
existing tenancy.
averments made therein is not true. Now there is a
change in the arnouri.t. of rent with the consent of
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is now receiving monthly rent
of Rs .. 2.,.000 without anr protest since February,
20 1~9·. · If this is the case, then the court of civil
Judge has no jurisdiction and now the matters

..
comes under the jurisdiction of Rent Controller. The
(S'Lf
~
'\ll?"
cop1es of the payment of latest rent receipt 1s
annexed as Anriexure'-1.
7. That in reply~ to para no. 7 it is.s,tated that the
vexatious and is vehemently denied. That in· para
no. 11 of the written statement not a single sentence
substantiates the false presumptions of the.
Defendant. In para no. 11 the defendant has clearly
stated that she. has not received an,y termination
notice issued by the Plain.tif~. Till date the Plaintiff is
receiving monthly amount without raising. any
protest. The Plaintiff has remained silent about the
receipt of payment rent and electricity supply dues.
In the entire Application he has chosen to remain
....__ .
silence on this issue and has not. disputed the fact
that he is receiving rent. The conduct of the P~aintiff
is admission of the fact that he is accepting rent and
other ch~rges and therefore has admitted to· the
existing tenancy.
8. · That in reply to para no. 8 it is stated that the
averments made therein· is false;· frivolous· and

.
. -.
.., ~··
·~ :-.
...~· •••;t
has nothing to say in his favour and that is why he
is beating around the bush and repeating the same
thing by making colourable variations. It is again
reiterated· no such termination notice as alleged by
the· Plaintiff has ever been received by the Plaintiff
and therefore 1t is out. of the vision to reply on the
same when jt is not all received.
9. · That in reply to para rio. 9 1t is stated that the
vexatious and is vehemently denied. No such
adm~$sion has been ever made by the Defendant as
. . cont~mplated by the. Plaintiff, The Application is not

.·.
maiiitainable as the suit is not maintainable
bec·$l_use it does not disclose any cause of action as

I
laid down by Supreme Court in the matter of Om "'""

i.
Prakash Shvastava: V / s UOI and anr. dated
24/07/2018 which is as follows:-
·.·"cause of action" it is meant every fact, which if
traversed, it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to support his right
to a judgement of the court. In other words, a
b":lndle of·. facts, which it is necessary for: the

plaintiff to prove 1n order to succeed 1n the
suit.
In the matter of Sejal Glass Ltd V j s Navilan
Merchants Pvt. Ltd and · 0rs. dated
21/08/2017 by Supreme Court, it is held that-
"Where the plaint as a whole d0es not disclose
a cause of action that Order VII Rule 11
springs into being· and interdicts a suit from
proceeding.'~
Therefore, in the light of the above said judgements
it is very clear tp.at the suit does not disclo'se any
cause of action and therefore it is liable · to be

..
dismissed. The copies of the judgement above·
....,__ mentioned has been annexed as Annexure-2 .
·averments made therein is false, frivolous. and
no good prim a facie case and therefore np balance

' . .
of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff,
','
1~1-
. ' . ~
• 0 \
l :··
. .
.12. That irt reply to para no, 11 it. is stated that the
vexatious and is vehemently denied.
PRAYER
In: 1.1ght of the above said submis~ions it 1s most
resp:ectfully prayed that this Hon 'bie Court may be
pleased to dismiss the application under Order XII

• • I
Rul~ ·6 for being frivolous, ·malicious and vexatious -"""'\
as ~o the extent of the suit not b~ing maintainable
along vxith heavy compensatory costs in favour of
the :defendant and against the Plaintiff.
Pass· such other orders as the Hon 'ble Court may
deem fit, and. proper.

'
Date: 04/05/2019
Place: Delhi
Defendant
Through·
Sd/-
M~.
Sanjucta Kabasi
Enrollment No.D/540/2015
Seat No.78, Bar Room-1, Civil Side,
Tis Hazari District Courts, New Delhi-110054
.Mob: 8700608356
IN THE COURT OF MR. RUPINDER SINGH· DHIMAN
CIVIL JUDGE (CENTRAL), TIS HAZAR! COURTS,
DELHI
CIVIL SUIT N0.1508 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: -

SH.RANJEET ... PLAINTIFF.
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
·...- I Subhra Kabasi W /0 Manoranjan. Kabasi E/0
blouse No, 27, 1 51 Floor, Khyber Pa as, Civil Lines,
New Delhi - 1.10054 do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under that:
1. That I am the Defendant 1n the above noted
case and therefore I am well conversant with
the facts and circumstances of the case and as
such I am competent to swear this affidavit.

. '
'
2. That the acc·ompanying reply has been drafted
by my c.ou:r:s~l' under my instructions and the
contents of the same may kindly be read as an
integral p~t and parcel of my present affidavit
as the contents of the same are not repeated
herein for the sake of brevity.
Sd/-
DEPONENT
(
0 .)
VERIFICATION:
·:·Verified at New Delhi on this (4-th May 2019 that
the' contents of the. affidaVit are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief and no part of it
is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom. '
Sd/-
DEPONENT
. I /TRUE COPY I I
' \
l60
ANNEXURE P-5
IN THE COURT QF SH. RUPINDER SINGH. DHIMAN,
CIVIL JUDGE -06,_ CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS H~ARI
COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ No.1508/2010
Ranjeet
.Vs.
Sublira. Kabasi
14.08.201.9
At 4.00pm
Present:- Non~ ..
Vide thi~ order I shall dispose off the
application U / o 12 Rule 6 CPC moved on behalf of
plaintiff on 14.11.2018, Reply to the aforesaid
application was listed on 0 0. 0 6. 2 0 1 9.
I have heard the_ arguments and perused the
~ record.
Before proceeding to decide (lie present
application it is important to stale in brief the facts
of the present' case, Plaintiff has claimed himself to
be the co-owner of the suit property along with his
mother. As per the plaintiff he inducted the
defendant as ?- tenant. into the suit property vide
rent agreement dated 06.01.2015 against a-monthly

rent of Rs.5000 /-. The said tenancy was renewed
from 06.12.2015 to 05.11.2016 vide rent agreement
date9. 1:2:12.2015. Thereafter, the defendant paid
the rent punctually upto March 20)6, but then, she
started making defaults. On humanitarian grounds,
plaintiffs father ·.extended the time till 05.02.2017
on month to month basis as hushand of the

'
defendant was ill. However·; it was made clear to the
defendant that she had to vacate the\ suit properly.
on or before 005.02.2017. Defendant assured the
plaintiff that she will vacate the suit property on or
before 31.0.1.2017. However, the defendant seal lire
legal notice dated 07.10.2016 calling upon the
plaintiff to receive the rent for October 2016. Thus,
it became clear to the plaintiff that the defendant
has changed her colour and therefore, the plaintiff
through reply dated 13.10.2016 to the aforesaid
n~tice terminated the tenancy of the defendant from

. .
, 05.02.2017 and called upon the 0-efendant to hand
over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
property. Despite rece1v1ng the reply dated
13.10, ..2.0-16, the defendan~ did not pay r.ent and did
..
. ·.
I :
not hand over the vacant and peaceful posses~ion of.
the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has been

. . .
constrained to file the. present suit for possession,
arrears of rent and permanent injunction.
I nthe written statement, defendant has
admitted that she is a tenant

. . in the suit property.
She further admitted that the rate of rent is
Rs.5000 /- per month. In fact the defendanthas;

. .:
filed
the money ord~r receipts to show that. rent of
Rs.5000/- per month is being paid by, her.
Therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant is
admitted and last admitted rent is Rs.SOOO /- per
month.
As per
. the plaint, a. legal notice terminating
. . the
tenancy was soot on 13.10.2016. Even if for the
sake of arguments it is assumed that the same is
not received .by. the defendant, however; serviee of
summons of the present suit on 18.08.2018 can
betreated as service of notice terminating the
tenancy. When, the relationship of landlord· and
tenant is admitted, and the said tenapcy stands
terminated, defendant is no longer entitled to stay in

l"b3
the suit property. Defendant has raised objections
to the title of plaintiff to suit property, ~but in view of
Section 116 Indian Evidence Act, she is barred from
raising the q_uestions on the title of the landlord.
Accordingly suit of the plaintiff is partly
decreed U / o 12 Rule 6 CPC, Defendant is directed
to hand over lm -vacant and peaceful possession of "'""""
the soil property to the plaintiff within three months
frorri today.
Deere~ ·sheet be prepared acco.rdingly.
Perusal· of reco.rd .reveals .that there is dispute
between the parties as to the amount due to arrears
of rent. Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to lead

.. . .
ev.id~~ce on the issue of arrears of rent on the next \
·date of hearing.
/.Accordingly, now to come up for PE on
04·:12.2019.
Sd/-
i.
(Rupinder Singh Dhiman)
Civil Judge06 (Central) /THC
·Delhi/ 14.08.2019
I /TRUE COPY I I
ANNEXURE P-6
IN THE COURT OF SH. RUPlNDER SINGH
DHIMAN, CIVIL ~UDGE -06, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
~
TIS HAZAR! COURTS, DELHI

CS SCJ No. 1508/2018
· 'Ranjeet
Vs.
Suhhra Kabasi
04.12.2019
Present: Mother of plaintiff in person.
Sh. Arun Chaudhary and Sh. Satish Kumar,
co'unsels for defen:dapt (Fresh 'Vakalatnama filed
today).
Today an application U / s 151 CPC has been
moved on behalf of the defendant fdr recalling of
order dated 14.08.2019 vide which suit of the
plaintiff was partly decreed U I o XII Rule 6 CPQ.
Through the present application, defendant
has prayed for the recalling of order on the ground

i
that in terms of the judgment of Hon 'blo High Court
in SBI Vs. Midland Industries and Another, this
court has not properly exercised the discretion ·in ...

decreeing UI o.. XII Rule 6 CPC. Defendant ha~ .'also
. .
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in
Baljeet Kaur Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd.,
anc;i Trishul Enterprises & Another Vs. Smt. Shobha
Rani Meiira to· press the same point.
Howe':'e;r, these questions go to the merits of
tht; ord~r and . canf?.ot b~ considered under an
application for review as application of recalling of
order U Is 151 CPC which is primarily a power to
review.
. · <·Further,' defendant has prayed th~t legal notice

.·.
tern:iinating the tenancy was not served no the
def~ndant and therefore, decree U I o XII Rule 6 CPC
should not have been passed. Perusal of the order
spe~ifically it has been

1
dat ed 14.08.2013 s:h,ows that
observ~d that oven if the arguments of the
defendant is accepted that notice has not been ~
served, service of suinnions of the present suit on

I
18.08.2018 · would amount to service of notice
terminating the tenancy.
Further ground taken .in the application is that
the plaintiff l.s not the owner of the suit property.
Defendant has averred that plaintiff made a false
advertisement with respect to the suit property

·- . _,.~'
regarding his· ownership of 'the · sui't' property.' H~
further submits that a writ petition has also been

. . ..
filed with respect to the same by the defendant. On
court query, with respect to the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the
defendant, counsel for defendant submits that the
relationship of landlord tenant was admitted as a
conditional admission.
Perusal of .written statement however, shows
that the admission of relationship of landlord and
·.tenant was mot conditional. No ground for review of
order dated 14.08.2019 is made out. Thus, when

.
the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted
between the parties, tenant ·cannot 'be allowed to

. .
\..,..... question the title of the landlord.
Another ground mentioned 1s · that the
defendant has invested an amount of Rs. 6 ·lacs for
repairs and betterment of the suit property. Bui this
is not relevant while deciding the question of
ejectment of a tenant by the landlord,· if any amount
has been spent by the defendant on the betterment
of the suit property, defendant is at liberty to· raise

·t·:.:.:: .
;
. . th~: s~id question at the ~ime. bf deciding the mesne
profit$.
In these circumstances, no ground is made out
for recall of order dated 14.08.2019 and accordingly
the·applic.ation stands dismissed. ;
':Perusal of record shows Hint the. matter is at
the stage of PE.
• Mother of plaintiff submits that counsel for
plaintiff is not available today for leading evidence.
Last opportunity is given.
Put up for PEon 20.03 ..2020.
Copy of the order be given dasti as prayed by
·counsel.
Sd/-
·(Rupinder Singh Dhiman)
Civil Judge -06 (Central) /THC "'
Delhi/ 04.12.2019
I /TRUE COPY I I
ANNEXURE P-7
IN THE COURT OF LD DISTRICT JUDGE,:

CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHr<: ..
..
RCA NO. OF 2023
In Rep:
Subhra Kabasi ... Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet . :.'Respondent
(Legal Aid Case Aided By the DLSA (Central District)
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER ORDER 41 RULE

I R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2019 PASSED BY SH.
RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN, LD. CJ-06, CENTRAL
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN SUIT
NO. 1508/2018 TITLED "RANJEET VS. SUBHRA
KABASI."
1. That Appellant has been constrained to tile the
present Appeal against. Impugned Judgment
and decr~e dated·· 14.08.2019 passed by Sh.
· Rupinder Singh D hi man, LD CJ - ·06 ,. Central,
Tis Hazari Courts,· Delhi in· Sail No, 1308 of
2018 titled "Ranjeet Vs Subhra.Kabasi." .

2. The Ld. CJ has partly decreed the suit in
favour of the Respondent, the re lore did not
appreciate the determination of admission of
Pact and taw as fact, in issue as well as the
impugned .·Judgment and decree 1s p.er-
incuriam as the interpretat~on of precedent
iaws/ authoritative pronouncements have not
been considered welL The issue of fact and law
is . whether the respondent is the owner or co-
owner of the suit property i.e. House No.27, 1st
Floor, Khyber Paas, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054,
it is pertinent t.o mention here that as per the
submission of the appellant an~ documents on
record; the suit property pertains to custodian
property of the Ministry of Defence. Hence \
without going into the issue of relationship of
landlord and tenant, the Ld. Trial Court firstly
decided the legal issue (maintainability of the
suit) under Order 10 of the CPC and further if
it requires trial, then rriatter may be proceeded
further for trial. The aforesaid issue has been
clarified by way of averments and submissions

....
along with record raised 1n the written
statement. The foremost question 1s well
interpreted by Hon dole Supreme Court in
Karan Kapoor V s. Madhuri Kumar's Judgrpent
as well as S.M Arif Vs Virender Ku~ar ;¥3ajaj
has clarified the admission of fact "power to
pass judgment on admissions is discreti9nary
and cannot be claimed as a matter of tight.
The said _power should be only exercised.:when
specific, clear and categorical admission. ·of
facts and documents are on record, otherWise
the court can refuse to invoke it".
Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC: Judgment, on admission
i) Where a.dmi~sion of fact have be.en made either
in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or
in writings the court may at any stage. of the
suit, either on the application of any party .or of
its own motion and without, wait.ing for the
determination of any other question between
the parties, make such order or give such
judgment as it may think fit, havin~ regard to
such admissions.
1::t l
ii) Whenever a judgment· is . pronounced under
sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn upon in

. '
accordance with the judgment and the decree
shall bear the date on which the judgment,
was pronounced."
1. The brief facts of the prese:p.t case are as
under:
1.1 The Respondent has filed the suit fur
possession, recovery of mesne profits and
permanent, injunction, The plaintiff herein the
respondent, is the co-owner with his mother of
the suit property. The plaintiff herein tine

. .
respondent has averred that the plaintiff
inducted the defendant herein·. the appellant as
a tenant, into the suit property vide rent -\
agreement dated 06.01.2015 against, a
J?Qnthly rent of Rs.~OOO / -. The said tenancy
~<was renewed ~rom 06.1 2 .. 40 t5 to 05.11.2016
: vide rent agreement dated 12.12.2015. Further
:: averred in. the plq..int that the defendant, paid
the rent punctually upto March 2016, but
then, she started making defaults. Plaintiffs

l12...
father extended .the time till 05.02.2017 on
month to month basis as husband·· of the
defendant wa·s ill. It was made clear to the
defendant that she had to vacate the. suit
property on or before 31.01.2017. The
defendant sent the legal notice· dated
07.10.2016 calling upon the plaintiff to receive
the rent for October, 2016. it became clear to
the plaintiff that the defendant ·has changed
his colour and therefore, the plaintiff through
reply dated 13.10.2016 to the aforesaid potice
terminated the tenancy of the defendant': from
05.02.201 i and called upon the defendant to

;
hand over the vacant and peaceful possession
of the suit property. Reply dal eel 13. 10,.2016
was served, the defendant did not pay the read

. .
and did not hand over the vacant and peaceful
possession of the suit property.
1.2 The appellant has filed the written statement
and raised variops objections including_ the

o o o I •
0
title/ ownership of the plaintiff ·.and further
denied the averments raised in the plaint and

t :=f ~
f ..
r~
further objections and submissions have been
taken in her written statement.
1. 3 That the Ld. CJ has not determined the issue
of title/ ownership as the plea raised by the
appellant in her written statement with the
document. The Ld. Trial Court has neither
correctly appreciated the facts and documents
on record nor correctly observed tire . """'
authoritative pronouncements.
1.4 Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
decrey· dated 14.08.2019 paElsed by the Ld. Tis

. ..·..
H~i:lri Courts in . Suit No.l5. 08: of. 2018 titled
"Ranjeet Vs. Subhra Kabasi", the Appellant has
preferred the pr~sent Appeal under. Order 41 Rule 1
r /Vf ·section 96 o the CPC on the following amongst ...-....,
other grounds:
GROUNDS
: ~
2. Because the Ld. Trial Court has not
appreciated the .de~ermination of admission of
fact and law as fact in issue as well as the

'
impugned Judgment and decree 1s per-
incuriam as the interpretation of precedent

laws/ authoritative pronouncements are not
considered well.
3. Because the Ld. Trial Court, has not
considered the fact of· legal lSSUe
(maintainability of the suit) under Order 10 of
the CPC, further if it require trial then matter
may be proceed further for trial. The aforesaid
issue has ' been .clarified by way of averments
and submissions along with record raised in
the written ·statement. The foremost question is
well interpreted by Han 'ble Supreme Court: in

1
Karan Kapoor Vs Madhuri Kumar s Judgment
as well as S.M Arif Vs Vi render Kumar Bajaj
has clarified the admission of fact, 11

power to
pass judgment on admissions is discretionary
and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The said power should lie only exorcised when
specific, clear and categorical admission of

i.
facts and documents are on record, 'otherwise
the court can refuse to invoke it".
4. Bec?-use the Ld. Trial Court has erred 1n

I
considering the legal issue of the suit property

as it pertains to custodia~ .property of [.he
I I
1 1
1 , 0 °
Ministry of Defence.
5. Any other ground this Hon 'ble Court may be
: ..:pleased
.
to allow at the time of
. arguments.
.
6. ::That, no similar Appeal seeking similar relied'
:has been filed befor-e tills Hon 'ble Court or any
·: other court.
7. Th?.t the present Appeal is moved bona fide
i' and in the interests of justice.
PRAYER
In light .of the aforementioned circumstances it
is most, respect fully prayed that this Hon 'ble Court
may be pleased to:

. .
A. Set aside the Impugned Judgment and decree
dated 14.08.2019 passed by Sh. Rupinder.
Singh Dhiman, ld. CM, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi in.Suit No. 1508 of 2018 tilled "Ranjeet
Vs Subra Kabasi";
. .
B. Summon the ld. Trial Court record in CS no.
1508 of 2018; and

C. Any other _:relief, which the Hon 'ble Court
deems fit under the facts and circurn.stances of
the case may also lie granted in favor of the
appellant.
Appellant
Through
Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant
Delhi
Dated: 03.03.2023
I /TRUE COPY I I
·..
7/
ANNEXUERE P-8
i
In ~he Court of Rakesh Kumar: Additional District
Juge-03 ·central District, Tis Hazai-i Courts, Delhi
RCA;No ..24/23
In the matter of:

Subhra Kabasi
WI o Late Manoranjan Kabasi
R/o H.No.27,' 1st Floor, Khyber Pass,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 ... Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet.
S / o Chancier· Pal
. R/o J:-1044, Mangolpuri,
Delhi-22083 ... Respondent
Date of lristi.tution . 06.03.2023

Reserved for Judgment 10.10.2023
Date
' . of Decision '10.10.2023
Appeal against judgment and Degree dated

14.08.2019 passed
.
by Mr. Rupinder Singh Dhiman,
.
Civil Judge -06, Central District, THC, Delhi
JUDG.MENT
1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC') is directed
against the Order on application under Order 12
Rule 6 CPC and decree dated 14.08.2019 passed by

'· .
the court of Mr. Rupinder Singh Dhiman, Civil
Judge-06, Central District, THC, Delhi in CS SCJ
no.l508/2018 .whereby the suit for.. possession·,
mense profits and permanent injunction instituted
by the plaintiff against the defendant was partly
decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for the relief of
eviction.
2. Brief facts for the decision in the appeal are
that the respondent, namely, Ranjeet (hereinafter
referred to as 'the plaintiff) has inst~tuted a suit
against the· appellant, namely, Subhra Kabasi
(hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') . for
· seeking rec~very of possession of first floor of
premises no. 27, Khyber Pass, Civil Line~, Delhi-54
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Suit Premis_es') and
for recovery of m~n~y. and future' mesne profits and
for perpetual injunction for restraining the
defendant or hi~· agent etc. from selling,' ali~nating~
gifting, mortgaging, parting with. posses~ion (full or
part) or from creating any third party interest in
respect of the suit premises. It is averred in the
plaint that the plaintiff let out the suit property to

I
'
. .
. ~ ~
the defendant for a period of 11 month's period and
rent agreement dated 06.01.2015 was executed
between the plaintiff and the defendant at a
monthly rent of Rs.5,000 I- for a period from
06.01.2015 to 05.12:2015 (wrongly typed as
05.12.2016· 1n the agreement); that the defendant
deposited se~~rity amount. of Rs.5,000/- towards
refundable security; that the defendant paid the
monthly. rent punctually in the first terms and
cop.~idering the same, the plaintiff r~n~wed the rent

I ,··
. '
. .
agreement for the second term commencing from
..
06. t2.2015 to 05.1 1.2016 vide rent agreement
dated 12,12.20 15; that the defendant paid the rent
pur+ctual~y upto March, 2016 b'L!-t, thereafter, she

'· '
started
..
. ' committing ·default in payment of rent; that '""
I
con-~idering the fact that husband of the defendant
was. ill, the plaintiffs father extended the time of
termination'ofthe rent agreement dated 12.12.2016
till 05.02.2017 on month to month basis; that
though the defendant was allowed to use and
occupy. the suit premises upto 3 1.01.2017 .hut
despite this, the defendant got is~ued a legal notice

I
1<-6-0
. .
dated 07.10,2016 ·thereby calling upon the plaintiff
. ..
to receive rent for· the month of Oct<?ber 2016; that
the plaintiff never. refused the accept the rent fro:r:n
the defendant; that the plaintiff duly replied· to the··
sa~d notice on 13.10.2016; that keeping in rp.ind the

"
settlement in mind, the plaintiff terminated the·
month to month tenancy of the defendant from
05.02.2017 and also called upon the defendant to
hand over the vacant and· physical possession of the
suit premises and also made clear that if the

'
defendant fails to vacate the suit premises; slfe will
be an unauthorized occupant and eventu.ally will be
liable to pay damages @Rs. 10,000/- per month
from 06.02.2017 onwards· till the date of hapding
"""" over the possession; that the defendant fa1ied _t~

. .
reply or comply the legal notiC'e and did not pay the
rent from month of October 2016 to .December
20 16; that due to repeated requests of the plaintiff,
the defendant deposited Rs. 12,580/- on
29.12.2016 and Rs.5,77o on 30 . 01.~i017 totali~g to
Rs. 18,350 I- leaving balance amount of Rs. 1 16'50 I-
with assurance that she will pay the same at the

t<6:\
time of vacating the suit premises ·on 05.02.2017;
· that the. defendant has still not vacated the suit
premises nor paid any damages from 06.02.2017 to
05.05.2018 1.e. 15 months which comes to
Rs.1,50,0.00/- apart from electricity and water
charges; that the defendant has filed a civil suit for
permanent injunction which is pending before Civil
Judge, Tis Hazari Court.
· 3. The de~e,nd.~nt contes.ted the present suit by
tiling written statement of her defence wherein took
preliminary objections to the effect that no cause of
action· arose in favour oi the plaintiff· to file the

I '•, •
present suit; that the site plart·· is ·blatantly wrong;
that the suit is barred by Section 17 of the
Registration Act, 1908: In reply in merits, that the

-·'
plaintiff has never issued rent receipt before April
20 iB; that the unregistered rent ;agreement is false
and ha's never been supplied to the. defendant; that

. !
that the plaintiff is accepting rent since April 2018
till. now by India Post· money order and is also
accepting . huge monthly expenses towards
electricity, water bill and maintenance charges; that

the documents have not been executed as per the
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908; that the
plaintiff had asked for an unsecured loan of
Rs.SO,OOO/-from the defendant in the y~ar 2016
and the plaintiff p.dvanced the same with ~ condition
that the same would be repaid by March 20 17,
Other allegations of the ·plaint· are denied. and
disputed by the defendant and prayed for dis!rJ.issal
of suit. ·..
4. While filing. replication, an application· ·under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC was made on behalf of the
plaintiff alleging therein that the relationship of the

. . ..
landlord and tenant between the parties ar-c
admitted; that 1n the written statement, · the
defendant has also admitted the rate of rent to be
Rs. 5,000/-; that the notice dated 07.10.2016 was
duly replied by the, plaintiff vide his reply dated
13.10,2015 and vide that reply the plaintiff has
terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f,
05.02.2017 and the defendant was called upon to
hand over physical and vacant possession of the
suit ·premises and as such there is an admission of

the al:;>eve said facts. which entitled the plaintiff for a
decree for eviction in respect of the suit prem1ses
under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
5. In reply to the application. u;nder Order XII
Rule 6 CPC, the defendant has contended that the
suit has no cause of action; that the defendant was.
never in arrears of rent and the tenancy is still
continuing; that the plaintiff is accepting rent every
month by money order; that the bank statement
annexed with the written statement shows that the
plaintiff and his family stopped taking rent from
April, 2018 onwards; that money order of
Rs ..5,000 /- dated 24.04.2018 was sent to the
plaintiff; that money orders were sent to the plaintiff
on· differen~ ctates; that the application deserves to -,

'
be dismiE?sed ..
6. Vide order dated 14.08.2019, the Leamed Trial
Court allowed the application under Order 12 Rule
6 cpc" and partly decreed· the suit for the reliefs of

_.· .
re'covery of· possession and p~rpetuc;;_l injunction.
WhUe allowing the application, the Learned Trial
; .
L~-lf
• .\
..
Court, vide' order dated 14.08,2019, inter alia, has
opined as follows:-
"In the written statement, defendant ha$
admitted that she lS a tenant 1n the suit
properly. She further admitted that the rate of.
rent is Rs. 5000/- per month. In fact the
defendant has filed the money or~er receipts to
·- show that rent of ~s. 5000 I- per month 1s
being paid. by her. Therefore, relationship of
landlord and tenant is admitted and last
admitted rent is Rs; 5000 I,... per month. .·
As per the plaint, a legal notice terminati11,g the
tenancy was sent on 13.10,2016. liven;:if for

I •
the sake of arguments it is assumed that the
same 1s not received by the defendant,
however, service of summons of the present
suit on 18.08.2018 can be treated as service of
notice terminating the tenancy, When, the
relationship .of landlord ·and. tenant is admitted,
and the · said tenancy stands·. terminated,
defendant is no longer entitled to stay in the
suit property. Defendant has raised objections

to the title of plaintiff to suit property, but in
view of. Sec;:tion 116 Indian Evidence Act, she is
barred from raising the questions on the title of
the landlord.
Accordingly suit of the plaintiff is partly
decreed U / o 12 Rule 6 CPC. Defendant is
directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful
possessio.n of the· suit property to the plaintiff
within·. three months from today.
Decree sli.eet. be prepared ac.cord.ingly."
7. I have heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate for
appe1lant' and Mr. Yogesh·.saxena, Advocate for the

.. ... . .
resppndent and have· gone through the trial court
record carefully.
8 .. ,:. Having drawn my attention on the impugned

-,
! .
ord~r and decree dated 14.08.2019 passed by the

. '
lea~hed trial court, it is submitted:by counsel for the
app~llaht that lessor-lessee relationship between the

parties is not denied. It is further that the suit
premises 1s on the. government land and the

appellant shall give possession of the suit premises
to the government only.
9. Per contra, counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the learned Trial Court has not
decreed the suit on the basis of title but on the
basis of lessor-lessee relationship which is admitted
by the defendant .. It i$ further submitted that under
Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,· 1872, the
lessee 1s estopped from· denying the title of the
lessor.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made on .~ehalf of the parties ..
11. The only point for consideration is whether the
learned Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit and
therefore, the order and decree passed by the
learned Trial Court are liable to be reversed.
12. In the light of assertions of the plaint and the
written statement, I am of the clear view· that the
defendant has admitted the lessor-lessee
relationship between the parties in respect· ()f the
suit premises, hence, it is proved that appell2:rit is a
tenant under respondent qua the suit premise·s.

M':l.·
"U(
13 ·: During the arguments 1n the appeal, it is
contended by counsel for the appellant that the

'
respondent is not the owner of the suit premises but
it is owned by the Govemment. The said argument
seems ~~·.be baseless in vi,ew of the contents of the
writferi.
. statement
.
wherein,
. as d~scusse.d
.. . above, the
les.sor-lessee relationship between the parties is
clearly admitted.
14. '··Even otherwise, under Section 116 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a tenfl,nt of immovable
property., shall during the continuance of the
tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of
such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a
title to such 'immovable property.

'
15. Admittedly, as per the pleadings of the parties,
the rate of rent of the suit premises is Rs,S,OOO /-
per. month. Therefore, the provisions of The D·elhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 also do not apply,
.16. Regarding termination of tenancy, it is alleged
by the plaintiff .that by· wa.y of reply sent by the
plaintiff to the legal notice received from the

'
defenclant, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy
of the defendant. In the written statement, the
defendant has denied that tenancy has been
terminated.
17. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Bharat
Bhushan Sehgal, RSA No.46/2012 as follows:
"8. It is contended by learned senior counsel
appeanng for the appellant/ defendant that
there IS no admission on the part of
appellant'/ defendant of having received the
notice of termination of tenancy dated

~
23.12.2009, as such there Is no clear
admission ·on th~ part of the respondent/
plain~iff as regards termination of tena,ncy and
as such decree of possession ·could not have
been passed in respect of the suit property ·in
favour of r:espondent/plaintiff. It is contended
that even site plan of suit prop~rty is not
correct and the impugned decree is liable to be
set aside ...

'
11. In Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh .
Singh (HUE); 2008 (II) SCC 728, the Supreme
::court has held that the tenancy would stand
:terminated under general law on filing of a suit
for eviction. Even assuming the notice
'·terminating tenancy was not; served upon the
:, appellant, as it is contended, though it has
· been served as is noted above, the learned ADJ
·'has rightly held. tl).at filing of eviction suit
under general law itself is notice to quit on the
tenant. The learned ADJ has also placed
reliance on M / s J eevan Diesels & Electricals
· ~td, v .. M/s Jasbir Singh Chaddha (IIUF) &
_f\nr.; 2011 (182) DLT 402 in coming to
aforesaid conclusion ..... "
'. 18. I1;1 the light of law laid down. 1n Cement
Corporation's
' . case (supra).,. even. assuming that the
reply terminating tenancy was not served upon the
defendant, as ·it is contended, filing of eviction suit
under general law itself is notice to quit on the·
tenant.
19. In v1ew of the above, I am of the considered
opinion that sufficient admissions have been made

by the defendant in the written statement or
otherwise that having regard to those admissions an
order of eviction can be made. I
20. While passing the impugned judgment; and
decree, the learned Trial 9ourt has prop~rly

. .
appreciat~d the facts and circumstances indiCated
herein above and has also appreciated the position
of law correctly.
21. In view ·of . my above ·discussion, I ·am of th.e
considered view that the impugned order and decree
suffers from no infirmity and hence is not liable to
be interfered with. The appeal is dismissed.
22. The appeal file after due compliance be
consigned to the Record Room, Trial Court Record
be sent back along "With copy of the judgment.
Announced in the Open Court

on lOth October, 2023
sd/-
(Dr, Rakesh Kumar)
Additional District Judge-03
Central District: Tis Hazari Courts:
Delhi
I /TRUE COPY I I
1. y ·~-
ANNEXURE P-9
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
AT NEW DELHI
. '•
_(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION}
R.S.A. N0.208 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
NOTICE OF MOTION
Please take note that the above noted Regular
Second Appeal and accompanying Applications
titled as Subhra Kabasi Vs. Ranjeet 'will be listed on
2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi. It is therefore requested that you please enter
your appearance on the said date.
Thanking you,
-
'
Delhi
Dated: 11 1112023
Sdi-
(PARIKSHT MAHIPAL)
ADVOCATE
.·.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF D.ELHI;
AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL A:p_PELLATE JURISDICTION)
R.S.A. N,0.208 OF 2023.
IN THE MATTER OF:

Subhra Kabasi ... Petitione'r
Versus
'·
URGENT APPLICATION
To
The Registrar: General'
Hon 'ble High Court of Delhi,
at New Delhi"· '•,: I
Respected. Sir,
Kindly treat the present RSA as an urgent one
-.._. In accordance with the High Court Rules and
orders. The gro_und of urgency is"
"Stay matter involved"
Delhi
Dated: 1I 11 I 2023
Sdi-
(PARIKSHT MAHIPAL)
ADVOCATE
.-·Ll"~
.....
~
.IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI,

AT NEW DELHI. ,
. .
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
R,S.A. N0.208 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
CERTIFICATE
Sir,
This is to certify that the appellant has filed
complete record/ placed in RCA No.24 of 2023
before the Ld. Appellate· Court has been filed along

. .
-y;ith present appeal. This Certificate is given on the
basis of the instructions given by the appellant
whose affidavit is filed in support of the Second
Appea~ .a.gainst Judgment ..

..
. •,
. . Delp;f
bat~~: 1 11112023
Sd/-
(PARIKSHT MAHIPAL)
ADVOCATE
··'

AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL A~PELLATE JURISDICTION)
~.S.A. N0~208 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

Subhra Kabasi . . . .... Petitioner
Versus
Ranjeet ... ResponP.ent
·..._ LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
22.05.2018 Plaintiff herein the Respondent filed.
the: suit for possession, permanent
injunction and mesne profits against
the defen~a~t herein tli.e appellant.
10.08.2018 Defendant herein the Appellant fled
the written statement along. with
documents.
14.11.218 Application under Order 12 Ru~e 6 of
the CPC' filed by ~he plaintiff herein
the respondent.
04'.05.2019 Defendant herein die appellant· filed

..
the reply of the application· ::uhder
Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC.

'.·.)-
~ ,.
.....
14.08.2019 Ld. Trial Court disposed of the
application under Order 12 Rule 6 of
the CPC decided in favor of the
· plaintiff herein the respondent on
14.08.2019
04 ..12.2019 .. Appellant filed the ·application under
Section 151 of CPC for recalling of
order dated 14.08.2019 and the said
application· was dismissed vide
Order dated 04.i2.2019 .

. ·.
04.03.2023 Appellant filed the appeal against
the imp~gned Judgment and Decree
dated 14.08.2019.
10.. 10.2023 Appeal of the . appellant was
dismissed vide Impugned Judgment
dated 10.10.2023
Hence, the present appeal.

AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL A~~ELLATE JURISDICTIO~)
R.S.A. N0.208 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
SECOND APPEAL U/S 100 R/W ORDER 42 OF CPC

·.AGAINST THE .IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
10.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LD. ADJ-03,
CENTRAL, TIS, HAZARl COURT, DELHI IN RCA
N0.24/2023
MEMO OF PARTIE·s:
Subhra Kabasi
W joLt. Sh. Manpranjan Kabasi,
R/o House No.27, 1st Floor, Khyber Pass,
Civil Lines, Delhi -110054
..
· · ... Appellant
.
(Respondent before Ld. Trial Court)
(Appellant before Ed Appellate Court)
Vs
Ranjeet
S/o Sh. Chancier Pal
R/o J-1044, Mangolpuri,
Delhi-11 0083 ... Respon~ent
. ..
Through Counsel (Pla~ntiff before Trial.~ourt

Adv. Yogesh Sax-ena Respondent bef?re . ,
0"'"
. I
C-161A, CL Joseph Appellate Court

Block, Tis. Hazari Courts,
..
Delhi,;, 110054
E~a.Jlid: ysaxena2006@yahoo.co:.in .'
Mob:<9911662380
Delb,i
Dat~d: 11. 1. 2023
Sd/-
Counsel for Appellant
(PARiKSHIT MAHIPAL)
ADVOCATE D-1770/2007
BAR ROOM-II, WESTERN WING
TIS HAZAR! COURTS, DELHI-110054
E-mail: pmahipal09@gmail.com
MOBILE NO.: 9868873986
\
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELH(
AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL .Af')?ELLATE JURISD ICTI 0 N)
· R.S.A. NO. OF 2023 ... · ·
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus ..
Ranjeet . .. Respondent '
. .
SECOND APPEAL U/8 100 R/W ORDER 42 OF CPC
AGAINST THE . IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
10.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LD. ADJ-03,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZAR! COURT, DELHI IN RCA
N0.24/2023
1. That the Appellant by way of ·the present
second appeal seeks to challenge the impugned
judgment dated 10.10.2023 passed by. Ld.
ADJ-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in
RCA No. 24 of 2023 whereby . L0. First
Appellate Court dismissed the Ap:pea~ on the
ground. of the· admitted relati~riship of lessor-
lessee without gmng into Issue of
maintaina?ility of the suit as the· respondent

,has
:.
no locus . standi to file the suit as the land
pertains to the Government hand, whereby the
'respondent has made false, forged and
fabricated documents of the Government land
and further the Ld. Trial and Appellate Court

. ..
ig11:o:r:ed the pleas raised by- the appellant in her
..
written statement. True Copy. of the Impugned
Judgment dated 10.10.2023 passed by Ld.
ADJ-03, ~entral, Tis Hazari Co:urts, Delhi in
RCA No. 24 of 2023 has been annexed and is
marl;ced as Annexure A-1-"
2. That the Fir~t Appellate Court did not
appreciate the determination of admission of
fact and law as fact in issue as well as the
impugNed. Judgment and decree dated
14.08.2023 lS per-incuriam as the
interpretation of precedent laws/ authoritative
pronouncements have not been considered
well. The issue of fact and law is whether the
respondent is the owner or co-owner of the suit
property i.e House No· 27, 1st ·Floor, Khyber
Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, it is pertinent

0 .+
to mention here that as per the submission of

0
the appellant and documents on record, the

I
suit property· pertains t.o custodian property of
the Ministry of Defence. Hence without going

::
into the. issue of relationship

. .
of landiord.; and
tenant, the: Ld Trial Court firstly decided. the
legal issue (maintainability of the suit) under

''--
Order 10 of the CPC and further if It requires
trial then matter may be proceeded further for

0 •
trip!. The:afo.tesaid issue .has be~n clarifi~d by

. ..
way of averments and submissions· along with
record raised in the written statement. The
foremost question 1s well interpreted by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karan Kapoor Vs
Madhuri Kumar's Judgment as well as S.M Arif
Vs Virender Kumar Bajaj has clarified the
admission of fact "power to pass judgment on
admissions is discretionary and cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. The said power
should be only exercised when specific, clear
and categorical admission . o{ facts and

~0\ :. ....
.
/ . t: I
,,
·documents arc on record, otherwise the court
can refus~ to invoke it" ..
Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC: Judgment on admission
i) Where admission of fact have been made either
in the pleadings or otherwise,

.
whether o~ally or.
in writing, the court may at any stage of the
suit, either on the application of any party or of
its owh motion and without waiting for the
determination of any other question between
the parties, make such order or give such
judgment as it may think fit, having regard to
such admissions.
3. Whenever a judgment 1s pronounced under
sub-rule ( 1) a .decree shall be drawn upon in
accordance with the judgment and the decree .,

. . .
shall bear the date on which the judgment was
pronounced.
4. In .view of the law lai.d down by Hon'ble
::Supreme Court in ease titl~d Jharkhand State
::reported as (2019) 17
. I
sec 692 wherein it has
..
·been held when the defendant raises the
i
genuine dispute with regard to title and when
he raises a- Cloud. ove~ the tltle' of the plaintiff
then, necessarily, in those circumstances,
plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for perm·anent
injunction, Similarly, the Apex Court in a case
titled Padhiyar ~rahladji Chenaji (D) through
LRs versus Maniben J agmalbhai (D) through
LRs & Ors (2022 Live Law (SC) 241) has held
that an injunction may be granted, even
against ~he true owner of the properly only
.when the person seeking the relief is in lawfui
possession and enjoyment of the property and
also legally entitled to be in possession, not to

. .
dispossess him except in due process of law. It
is true t?at the title of the prop~rty is the basis
of relief of :· possession and the relief of
permanent injunction can be said to · be a
consequential relief and not. a substantial
relief. Onte the plaintiff fails to get any
substantive decreetal relief with regard to title
and possession the relief of injunction can be

'
said to be c:;onsequential relief. It is evident that
,... ...
~
. . ..
-·! ··,:~ ,•
.J.n a suit for. injunction there were necessary
:·pleadings regarding title of the suit property
. ;:and ·appropriate· issues relating to title had
::been framed. Hon 'ble Supreme Court in a case

·:
· titled T.V. Rama Krishna · Reddy vs M.
. Mallapora and Anr.,. reported as AIR 2021 SC
4293 held that where there are necessary
pleadings regarding the title of the suit
prop~rty and appropriate issue relating to title
pn which parties lead evidence, if matter
tnvolved is simple and straight forward, Court
may decide upon issue relating to title, even in
a suit for .J.njunctio~. Th~ >I:ion ble Apex Court
in a ease tilled Anathullah

.: . .. Sudhakar vs P .
Bu~hi Reddy (D) by LRs and Ors, reported as
(2008) 4 sec 594, ~hile deciding the case with
regard to injunctions, sul;Ilmarizeq the
principles governing thereto, it is profitable to
extract para 21 of the judgment as under;

' . .
To summarize, the ·pqsition in regard to suits
for ~ prohibitory injunction relating to

1
immovable properly, is as under:
•'
(a) Where a cloud
. is
. .
raised over . plaintiff's
.
.
title and he does not have posse~sion, a suit
for declaration and possession, with or without
a consequential injunction, is the rem~dy.
Where the plaintiffs title is not in dispute or
under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he
has to sue for possession with a consequential

1._
injunction. Where there 1s merely an
interference with plaintiffs lawful possession
or threat 'of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue
for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter 1s
concerned, only with possession, normally the
issue. of title will not be directly and
substantially in ·issue. The prayer for
injunction will be decided with reference to the
finding on ·:possession. But in cases where de
jure possession has to be established on the
basis of title to the property, as in the case of
vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and
substantially anse for consideration, as

..
. . :.without a finding thereon, it will not be
::possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) :But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a
. : suit .for injunction, unless thfre are necessary
i. ple.adings and appropriate issue regarding title
:[either specific, or implied as noticed in
:Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)). Where the
averments regarding title are absent in a plaint
and where there is no issue relating to title, the
court will not investigate or examine or render
a finding on a question of title, in a suit. for
injunction. Even where there are necessary
·pleadings and issue, if the matter involves
complicated questions of fact .and law relating
to title, the court will relegate the parties to the
r~medy by way of.· comprehensive suit for
declaratio·n of title, instead of deciding the
issue in a suit, for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding
title, and. appropriate issue relating to title on
which parties lead evidence, if the matter
involved is simple and straight-forward, the

~..
~·
court may decide upon the issue rega:tding
title, even in a suit for injunction. But ·such
cases, are the exception to the normal rule that
question qf tipe vvill not be decided in sui:ts. for
injunction. But persons having clea~. title and
possession suing for injunction, should not be
driven to the costlier and more cumbersome
remedy 0
of. ·a suit for dedar'ation, merely
because some meddler vexatiously or
wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach
upon his property. The court should use its
discretion carefully to identify cases where it
vvill enquire into title and cases where it vvill
refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive
declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of
the case.
In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid
judgment, in sub para (d) of paragraph 21, that
where the plaintiff is in possession but his title

• 0 •
to the prope.rty is in dispute or under a cloud
or where the ·defendant asserts title thereto,
and there is also a threat of dispossession fr~m

the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for
I
declaratlon of title and the consequential relief
of injunction where the title of the plaintiff is
under a cloud or in dispute.
The Hori'ble ,Apex Court in T.V. RamaKrishna
.Reddy case (supra) held that where there are
necessary pleadings and appropriate issues
relating 't6 title, on which parties le?td evidence,
if matter involved is .· simp~e and straight
forward, Court may decic;ie upon these issues
regarding. title even in a suit for injunction~·
Apex Court had bracketed such cases as
except~ on to the normal rule. It cannot be said
that dispute raised by defendant with regard to
title is not genuine, nor can it be said that title
of plaintiff over the suit property is free from
cloud. In the present case, there where
necessary pleadings regarding title and
appropriate issue relating to title, on- which
partie.~ ·led evidence, and the matter involved
was simple · and ·straight fo.rward, the· Court

decided upon the is.sue regarding the title:,' even
in a suit for injunction.
5. That the brief facts of the case are as under:-
A) The Respondent has filed the suit for

•,'
possessio~, _recovery of mesne profit~: · and · ·
permanent injunction. The plaintiff he~~:in' the
respondent is the co-owner with his mother of
the suit property. The plaintiff herein the
respondent.. has ·averred .that. the plaintiff
inducted the defendant herein the·· appella11t as
a tenant into the ~::uit, property vide rent
agreement dated 06.01.2015 against a monthly
rent of Rs 5000/-. The said tenancy was
renewed from 06.12.2015 to 05.11.2016 vide
rent agreement dated 12.12.2015. Further
averred. in the plaint that the defe~dant paid
the rent punctually upto March 2016, but
then, she started making defaults. Plaintiff's
father extended the time till '05.02.20 1 7 on

~
month to month basis as husband of the
defendant was ·ill. It was made clear to the
defendant that she had to vacate ·the suit

r
property on or before 31.01.2017. The
defendant sent the legal notice dated
07,10.2016 calling upon the plaintiff to receive
the rent for October, 2016. It became clear to
the plaintiff that the defendant has changed
his colour and therefore, the. plaintiff through
reply· dated 13.10.2016 to the aforesaid notice
terminated the tenancy· of the defendant from
05.02.2017 and called upon the defendant to
hand over the vacant and peaceful possession
of the suit property. Reply d~ted 13.10.2016.
was served, the defendant did not pay the rent
and did not hand over the vacant and peaceful
possession of the suit property.
B) The appellant has filed the written statement
and raised various objections including the
title/ ownership of the plaintiff and further
denied the averments raised in the plaint and
furthe·r objections and submissions have been
taken in her written statement.
C) On 14.11.2018, application under Order 12
Ru~~ 6 of the CPC ~led by the. plaintiff herein

the respondent and .thereafter on 04.05.2019
Defendant herein the appellant filed. the reply
of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the
CPC.
D) On 14,08,2019 Ld. Trial Court disposed of the

~
application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC

. .
decided in favor ·of the plaintiff herein . the
respondent 9n 14.08.2019. Tr:u~ Copy of the
impugned Judgment and (Decree dated
14.08.2019 passed by the Ld. CJ-06,

.
Central,
. .
Tis Hazar{ Court, Delhi has been annexed
herewith and is marked as AnnexU.r.e A-2.
E) On 04.12.2019, Appellant filed the application
under Section 151 of CPC for recalling of order

.
dated 14.08.2019 and
. .
the said application
.
was
dismissed vide Order dated 04.12.2019; True
Copy of Order dated 04.12.2019 passed py the

Ld. CJ- 06, Central, Tis Hazari Court, 'Delhi
has been annexed herewith and is marked as

'
Annexure A-3
F) Appellant filed the appeal on 04.03.2023
against the impugned Judgment and :Decree

. ·: -~
dated 14.08.2019. True Copy of the Appeal
along With annex lire dated 04.03.2023 has
been annexed herewith and is marked as
Annexure A-4.
G) T?~t. the Ld. CJ has .not determined the issue

..
:' :::of
':
title/ownership as the plea· r~ised by the
' I 'I o
·:'appellant in her written statement with the
·document. The 1~. Trial Court has neither ""
correctly appreciated the facts and documents
on . record nor correctlY; observed the
>.authoritative pronouncements. It is pertinent

. ~
·to mention here that no issues were -framed
, and matter is at the stage of Plaintiff Evidence
for the' arrears of the rent.
H) Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
decree dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Ld. CJ,
Tis ·Hazari Courts in Suit No. 1508 of 2.018
titled "Ranjeet Vs Subhra Kabasi" the

'
Appellant has preferred the present Appeal
under order 41 Rule 1 r jw. section 96 of the
CPC· on various grounds vide RCA No. 23 of
2023 titled "Subhra Kabasi Vs Ranjeet".

E) That the Ld. Appellate Court without
appreciating the facts, reached an. erroneous

. .
conclusion, overlooking and 1gnonng the
substantial and procedural law, judicial
precedents, pleadings, documents on record
dismissed the appeal vide RCA Nci, 23 of 2023
on 10.10.2023 because of which the appellant
suffereq. from perversity thus impugned
judgment dated 10.10.2023 of the Ld.

. .
Appellate Court. arid impugned Judgment and
decree dated 14.08.2019 of the Ld. Tri.al Court
are liable to be set-aside.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW:

. .
The following questions of law anse for
'-...-- consideration by thi.s Hon 'ble Court:
A) Whether impugned judgment and decree
passed by Ld. Trial and Appellate Court 1s
erroneous, perverse and caused prejudice to
the rights of the appellant ·• while
misinterpreting/per incuriam the laW: laid
down by Hon 'ble High Court and H•on 'ble
·
•'·
...
•,'
.~[f.)
. .
: \
Supreme Court of India regarding admissibility
of fact?
B) . :Whether Ld. Trial arid Appellate Court
· • .misconstrued the cogent and relevant
:>documents on record?
C) ·whether Ld. Trial and Appellate Court without

j
:. deciding the preliminary lSSUe of
; · m~intainability of the suit and the locus standi
·of the respondent under Order 10 Rule 1,
.:. Order 14 Rule 2 sub-rule 2 and section 9 of
the CP,C can proceed the matter which may

'
prejudice the rights of the appellant?
D) Whether trespasser can be entitled to claim the
posl?ession .of the Government land on the
basis of forged and fabricated titled document?
E) · Whether trespasser can be entitled for
Judgment and decree on the basis of
unspedfic;
.. . unclear admission
.
of fact?
.
F) Whether the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial
' .
and Appellate . Court suffers from an error
~ .
either of. law or procedure and gave its own
judicial interpretation which is per incuriam?

. ·.
GROUNDS:
A. Because.th~ .impugned judgment and decree of

. .
the Lt Trial and Appellate Court· is liable tp be
set aside as the same is against law and
circumstances of the case. The impugned order
is based upon conjectures and Surmises.
B. Because the Ld. Trial and Appellate Court
grossly erred in ignoring the fact and law that
the respondent has no locus standi. to file the
suit of the prem1ses which pertains to the
Govemmen t land by claiming himself to be
owner ~nd landlord of the suit property.
C. Because the Ld. Trial and Appellate Court has
not considered .-the fact of preliminary legal

. ..
issue· (maintainability of the. .suit)
. . under Order
10 Rule 1, Section 9 and Order 14 Rule 2 sub-
rule 2 of the CPC, further if it r~qui.t~es tri::~.l
then matter may be proceed further for trial.
The aforesaid· issue has been clarified by way
of averments and submissions along with
record raised in the written statement. The
foremost question 1s well interpreted by

0 0
) ..;
• J. :--
...
:Honble Supreme Court 1n Karan Kapoor Vs
:Madhuri Kumar's Judgment as well as S.M Arif
· 1Vs Virender Kumar Bajaj ~as clarified the
ip.dmission of fact "power to pass judgment on
:~dmissions is discretionary and cannot be
.·Claimed as a matter of right. The said power
should 'be only exercised when specific, clear
and catego:r:ical admission of facts and
documents are on record, otherwise the court

"
can -refuse. to invoke it".· Hence the issue of
estoppels under section 116 cannot be
consider .at the given facts and circumstances
about the tenant cannot de:nying the title of
landlord.
D. B.ecause the Ld Trial and Appellate court erred ~
in law to consider when the documents are on
record to show that the land pertains to
Government land, and no rent agreement was
executed .between the parties. Hence there is
no clear admission of tenancy and further
trespasser cannot be allowed to claim the
amount or rent on behalf of Government and

.....
. Q/(,
f--
')
further .whe.n there · are .Issues ·raised In
pleadings · then issues are required to be
framed and preliminary issue also raised on
the maintainability of the suit and locus standi
of the respondent.
6. That the Appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble
Court to urge such further additional ground

''--
(s), at the time of hearing of this R.SA, which
have not been specifically takeri up in this
RSA.
7. That the Appellant has not fired any other or

\
similar appeal before this Hon'ble Court or any
other court ~xcept the present one.
PRAYER
. .
this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: ..
A) Set-as~de, reversed and quashed the i:tr?-pugned
judgment dated 10.10.2023 ·passed by Ld ADJ-
03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA
No.24 of 2023 in title Subhra Kabasi Vs
Ranjeet and appeal of the appellant may kindly

. .
be accepted;
:I"
I ','
B) · · 'Summon the Ld. Appellate Court record vide
·RCA No. 24 of 2023 and Ld. Trial Court record
. vide CS No. 1508 of 2018 respectively of its
: kind. perusal;
C) '.PaE!S any other or further order which this
• Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the
. circumstances of the case in favour of the
Appellant.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE
APPELLANT SHALL EVER BE OBLIGED AND
SHALL EVER PRAY.
Delhi
Dated: 11.1.2023
Sd/-
·Counsel for Appellant
(PARIKSHIT MAHIPAL) ---.,
ADVOCATE D-1770/2007
BAR ROOM-II, 'WESTERN WING
TIS HAZAR! COURTS, DELHI-110054
MOBILE NO.: 9868873986
E-mail: pmahipal'09@gmail.corh
,!..•-
, .. l:
. ,·
' .;l
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI,·.

AT NEW.DELHI
R.S.A. N0.208 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Subhra Kabasi, · W / o Lt. Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi,
Rjo House No. 27, 1st Floor, Khyber·Pass, Civil Line-

·. ~
110054, aged about 58 years, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as.urider:-
1. That 'I am th.e Appellant 1n the above said
matter and am well conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the case and also
competent 'to file the present affidavit.
2; That the contents of the accompanYing appe~
has been drafted by my counsel as per my
instruction and the contents of the same have
been duly read over to me in· a vernacular

. .
language and understood by me and after fully
understanding the contents of the sap:1e, I

., ... ,
·::....... '!;·
..
.: .hereby
:':
stale
.
that
. the facts slated
. ·. . therein
.
arc all
•true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
:The conten~s of s~id petition may kindly he
, read as part and parcel of this affidavit also as
·:the .contents of the same; have not been
'repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified' at Delhi on this 3rd day of October,
2023, that the contents of my above affidavit are
true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is
false · and n·othing material has been concealed
·. thert;!from·.
DEPONENT
I /TRUE COPY I I
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2023
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2023
[Arising out of the impugned final judgment and

order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the .Hon 'ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No. 208/2023]
IN THE MATTER OF:

Subhra Kabasi~
: .. Petitioner
Versus
Ranjeet ... Respo:J;ldent
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AS ANNEXURE P-
10 TO P-12
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE.
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVENAMED;
'
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: I
1. That the present Special Leave Petition has
been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India praying for Special Leave to Appeal

,.
against the: impugned final judgmen.t and; order.
dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi 1n RSA No.
208/2023.
2. That the following document was inadvertently
:not filed ·in the lower courts, thu.s, was not a
:part of the records of the Courts below.
However, the said document is an important
; and necessary document for the adjudication

. .
··of the present matter. The :said document 1s
•: annexed herewith and marked as:
· i) True copy of the Rent Agreement dated
12th day of December 2015 along with
documents 1s annexed herewith as
Annexure P-10 (Pgs.?.. ~~~ to 2'1')
ii) . True copy of the .Letter dated 20.01.2023
sent to Police Station, Civil Lines,
· Timarpur, Delhi is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-11 (Pgs. 2H"f:;;... .2.'1!.)
iii) True . ·copy of the. ·Letter No.L&DO /L-
III/8/3(40)/40 dated 16.05.2023 sent to
the Sh. Subhankdar Kabasi is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-il2(Pgs:?-4-' to

ri
t._t..
·,·.!
4. That the aforesaid additional document 1s an
important and necessary document for the
·.adjudication 'Of the present case.
5. That the Respondents would suffer irreparable

'
loss and injury if the present application is not
allowed. The present application. being moved
bonafide and in interest of justice.
PRAYER
.It is most respectfully prayed that this _Hon ble
Court may kindly be pleased to:
i) permit the petitioner to file the additional
documents as Annexure P-10 to P-12; 0
ii) Pass or grant such other interim
relief/ order/ direction as this Hon 'ble · Court
may deem fit and proper 1n the interest of
justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR HUMBLE

PETITIONERS, AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER
P~. ,
DRAWN BY:
(Ms. Sanjucta Kabasi)
ADVOCATE
_:f':"IR . , AltV P· BAN ~/e.-:1 BE .
DRAWN ON: Advocate for the Petitioner
FILED. ON: 2. t!tl HI ~'-.5
.•
ANNEXURE P-10
e-Stamp Certificate. No.IN- DL91781530832792N
RENT-AGREEMENT·
. . .
This Rent Agreement is made in Delhi on 12th
Day of December 2015 BETWEEN,
Mr. RA~~;e:ET S/0 SH. CHANDER P.f\L Resident of
J-10~4;
. MANGOL PURl, NEW . D~LHI-
. 110083,
herd.J:lafter called the OWNER/FIRST PARTY.
AND
Mrs.':SUBHPA KABASI Wife of SH. MONORANJAN
KABf'.SI Resident of 19, PARDA :BAGH·, BEHIND
HAPPY ~CHOOL, DARYA GANJ, DELHI, hereinafter
called the Tenant/Second Party.
And ,Whereas the expression of t};1e both the parties,
which shall include their legal hires, nominees, next
of kins, successors, administrators etc.
And Whereas the First party is the true, lawful
owner and ·in his/her possession of the PORTION
OF PROPERTY NO. H.N0.27, 1ST FLOOR, FANCI
$ILK MILL, KHEBAR PASS, DELHI
Whereas hereinafter first party ha~ agreed to ·let out
of above said property to the tenant on monthly rent
' .
. .~ .
of Rs. 5000/- per month fora period of (11) months,
for the use in RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE.
And whereas the tenancy commence W.E.F.
06/12/2015 to 05/11/2016 for a time period 11
Months and the tenancy period may be extended

~
with the mutual consent of both the parties, by
enhancing the re~t which will be mutually d~cided.
·- And whereas the second party I t.enan t held
liable to pay ·the electric· & water· charges extra as
per the consumption according to the meter reading

' .
to first party and 1 0°/o increase of rent after the 11
months.
And whereas the tenant/ second party shall not
challenge about the rent in any court of law.
And whereas tenant/second· party had
deposited a sum of NIL to the owner as security
which will be refundable by the landlord to the
tenant at the time of vacation of the above said

. .
rented premises. without any interest.
NOW THIS RENT AGREEMENT W1TNESSTH AS

UNDER:
1. That the tenant/ second party shall no~ make
any additions or alterations in the abov~ :not~d , .

1_15
prem1ses without the Wr-itten consent of the
first party and shall keep the premises neat
and clean and shall not let out the same on
rent or without rent to any other person at any
tim~··
2. . That the party ~hall be full:y. entitl~d to look the

hours and
.. after the same at any reasonable
•.second party/ tenant shall not ra1se any '"'

..
:_.objection against the same.

shall pay the
3. , That the second party jtenapt
,:re~t regularly to the first party in advance.
4. , That the white washing, painting, day-to-day
<repair /maintenance charges will be done by
the tenant at his own cost and expenses.
5. That if the tenant may stop the payment of
rent, then the landlord will be free to initiate
legal proceedings, for the recovery of all. the
arrears of rent and evict the tenant.
tenancy commences from

6. That the
06/12/2015 for a period of (1.1) months and
the period may be extended by both the parties
with their mutual consent:

... i""',c-..
'
7. That if the first party wants to vacate the said
premises . before the expiry of tenancy period
from the second party j tenant then he s~all
produce ONE MONTH advance notice to the
second party /tenant and tenant shall also
adopt the same conditions.
8. That tenant". shall abide all ·the rules and
regulations of the concerned authorities.
9. That the t~nant shall use the said premises
only for Residential/ Commercial/ l?dustrial
purposes.
10. That the fiers party have no objection if the
tenant /second party shall apply for U.I.D
card, mtnl ·telephone connection
(S.T.D /Pco /Persdnal Phone)/ internet
connection, gas connection, voter I c~rd;: child
admission,: bank account, etc at the: ·said
prem1ses.
11. That if at any time shall use· the said premises
for any illegal purposes, or misuse the same in

...
any m,anner,...the landlord shall be fully.:~ntitle
I • ' .•
. ·.
I I
.
')-
. ' ....
..t.-.
to get the premises vacated through court of
law without giving any notice to the tenant.
1,2. That the tenant hereby assures· to the landlord
that he shall pay the rent regularly to the
landlord and also abide the rules and
regul?.tions of this Re:qt Agreeme!).t.

. . .
13.:· That alt the expenses of ~~amp papers, and

..
.other documents, papers, charges shall be
borne by the tenant.

. '
14. •That this Rent will be treated as STANDARD
·.RENT, and no party or his h~irs, challenge the
san;1e.
IN WITNESSES WHERE OF this RENT Agreement is
made at Place, date month and year first above
mentioned 1n the presence of the following -\
witnesses:
WITNESSES: Sd/-
Sd/- Illegible FIRST PARTY
Sd/-
SECONI{ PARTY /TENANT
. \
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
This General Power of Attorney is executed at
Delhi, on the 22nd day of February, 2014, By SHRI
MUKESH KUMAR Son of late Shri Sukal

. "
Ram,
resident of 27, Fancy Silk Mills, Khyber Pass, Delhi-
54, hereinafter called the Executant.
: IN FAVOUR OF
(1) SMT. SAROJ Wife of Shri Chancier Pa~, and (2)

. . .
SHRI RANJEET Son of Shri Chander Pal, both
residents of J-1044, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-83,
hereinafter called the General Attorney.

I
WHEREAS the Executant 1s owner and in
possession of Built up Super structure bearing
House No.27, measuring about 25 Sq.Yds ..; situated
at Fancy Silk Mi~ls, Khyber Pass, Delhi-54.
AND WHEREAS the Executant do ~ereby
appoint, authorise, nominate arid constitute said
person as true and lawful general attorney .In
respect of .sai~ property and' do here by eU1p9wer
them jointly and/ or severally to do follo.wing acts,
deeds & things in respect of above said property in

....
... ..:_' \ ./
·~ \
the name and on behalf of the principal under her
own signature.
·NOW THIS G.P.A. WITNESSTH AS UNDER:-
1. To manage, control, lookafter and supervise
the aforesai~ property in all respects:
2. · To enter'ihtc>Agreement, to teceive advance, to
issue respect, to get the Agreement registered if
required.
3 .. :TP get the lease hold rights converted into free

. .
I > ..
deposit conversion charges, to give
statements, to produce documents, to execute
Conveyance Deed, to get the same stamped, to get
the 'same registered in the office of Sub- Registrar,
conferned and in this respect to appear and act in
the ;,office of Collector of Stamps, Sub-Registrar
Office, to s1gn and submit requisite forms,
prescribed ~orms, affidaVit, declaration, indemnity
bond, surety bond, security bond, to reply to the
letters and notices, to follow up the matter in all
respects.
4. To sell ·the aforesaid property in part or whole
and· i'n this regard to receive consideration, to issue

receipt, to execute· Sale Deed, to admit execution, to
get the same registered, to present the same for
registration in the office of subregistrar, concerned;
to· han dover the po.ssession of said prop~rty to ·the
intending purchaser/ s.
5. To get the electricity and water connection/ s
changed/installed in the said proper;ty, to appear
and act in the Electricity and water Deptt. , to do all
acts, deeds and things for this purpose.'
6. To execute Rectification Deed, Supplementary
Deed, to admit execution, to get the same· registered,
if required.
7. To receive alternate s'ite or acquisition money,
1n case the said property is acquired l:?Y the
concerned authority.
8. To ·get· the aforesaid property transferred,
mutated and substituted in the records of MCD,
DDA, Electricity and Water Deptt., or any other
concerned aut~ority.
9. To Appear and act in the office of MCD,
Electricity and water Deptt., DDA, Revenue, sub
Registrar Office of Collector of Stamps, or any other

,..
, :~J
concern autho~ity in respect of all affairs and
matters relating to said property.
10. To deposit dues and demands of the concern
authority, to obtained valid discharges thereof.
11. To gift the aforesaid property, to execute Gift
Dee'd, to admit execution, to get the Gift Deed
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, concerned.
12. To execute Rectification Deed,. Supplementary -""'
Dee·d, to admit execution, to get the s·ame registered
in the office of Sub-Registrar, concerned.
13. To sign and admit requisite forms, prescribed
for~~:'· affidavit, declaration, inde~nity bond, no
o.bjec:tion, surety bond, undertaking, security bond,
to give statements, to produce documents, to follow
up the matter in all respects.

i
14. : To file suit, plaint, complaint, petition, written
i . :
stat~mep.ts, appleas,·· in the court whether appellate
or original jurisdiction, to file or withdraw the
docu,ments, to execute decree of the court, to receive
decreetal amount , to issue valid discharges thereof,
to engage Advocate or pleader.

15. To appoint anyone. else as General or Special
Attorney.
16. And generally to do. all other. ~cts, deeds and
things which are necessary for . the aforesaid
purpose Js whi<:::h have not been ·speCifically
mentioned in this Deed.
I do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all such acts,"

,_
deed and things to be done by said attorney shall be
construed as acts, deeds and things done by the
personally, as if I were present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this

i.
General Power of Attorney at the place, da1, month
and hear first :above written in the preseripe of
following witnesses:-
WITNESSES:
1. Sd/- Sdj-::.
Illegible Illegible
2. Sd/-
Illegible.
Sd/-
EXECUTANT
) -:{ -~
,... .........
DEED OF WILL
This DEED OF will is executed at Delhi on this 22nd
day of February 2012, BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAR
Son of late Shri Sukal Ram, resident of 27, Fancy
Silk Mills, Khyber Pass, Delhi-54, Hereinafter called
the Testator.
IN FAVOUR OF
(1) SMT. SAROJ Wife of Shri Cha:rider Pai, and (2)
hereinafter
.. . called the Legatees.
..
W:trE)REAS I ~ owner
. and in po~sessiqn
.. . of Built up
Super structure bearing House No.27, measunng
about 25 Sq.Y ds., situated at· Fancy Silk Mills,

I
Khyber Pass, Delhi-54.
I, , hereby devise, bequeath ; and leave the
aforesaid property to the said legatee absolutely and
forever, who after my death will become the absolute
owners of said property, who, then shall be fully
competent to use and enjoy· the said property or
transfer or alienate the same to anyone in the
manner they like, without any claim, demand and

•.... ~.
0 bj ection b:y my other heirs and SUCCeSS<;JrS,. in case
said legatees. pre.deceases me theri ':he aforesaid
property shall go and devolve upon heirs and
successors of sai:ci legatees.
In. case said Legatee predeceases me then ·the
abovesaid property shall go and involve upon her
heirs and successors.
This is my last and final will in respect of said

.
property, if any other Will· is found prior to this
relating then the same shall be treated as cancelled
and revoked.
IN WITNESS W:fiEREOF, 1 have executed .this will at
the place, day, month and year first above written in
presence of the following witnesses.
WITNESSES:-
1. Sd/- · SdJ-:··< :
Illegible TESTATOR'
2. Sd/-
Illegible
AGREEMENT OF SELL
This Agreement to sell is executed at Delhi, on this
22nd day of February, 2012, By SHRI MUKESH
KUMAR Son of late Shri Sukal Ram, resident of 27,
Fancy Silk Mills, Khyber Pass, Delhi-54, hereinafter
called the first party.
IN FAVOUR OF
(1) SMT. SAROJ Wife of Shri Chancier Pal, and (2)

'
hereinaft~r called the Second party.

. .
The:;! _expression of the first and seco~d party herein

. .
used .. shall mean and include them, their heirs,
succe.ssors and assigns etc.
WHEREAS the First party 1s owner and 1n
pos5;essio~ of Built up Super s_tructure bearing
House No.27, measuring about 25 Sq.Yds., situated
at Fancy Silk Mills, Khyber Pass, Delhi-54.
AND , WHEREAS the First party has agreed to sell
the aforesaid property for a sum of Rs.l,OO,OOO/-
(Rupees One Lac only) to the second party and the

,... • .:
second party has agreed to purchase· the same fro:in
the first party for the same consideration.
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS UNDER:·
1. That the first party doth hereby sell, transfer,
convey, assign and apart the aforesaid property to
the second party along with .the rights of ownership,
title, interest, easement and privileges along with
fixtures and fittings whatsoever appurten~nt to the
aforesaid property TO HAVE AND TO HOLD. the

: • !
same up to the second party absolutely and forever.
2. That the first party h~s delivered the pea·ceful,
physical vacant possession of said property}o the

' ' ' .
second party o:p. e}.{_ecution of this Agreement. . .·.; ·. · ·
0 •
' .
3. That the first party hereby assures tpe. .second
party that the said property is free from all sorts of
encumbrances such as prior sale, gift, mortgage,
litigation and disputes~ stay· order and attachment,

.
notification and acquisition, charges and liens,
surety and security or any other registered or un-
registered encumbrances and if this fact is found
otherwise as a result of which a part or whole of the

said property goes out from the hand 'Of the second·
party then the first party will be liable and
responsible to indemnify the loss thus suffered by
the secortd party that the rate of then prevailing
market value.
4. That the first party will pay dues and demands
of the concerned authority upto the date of
exe~ution of this agreement and thereafter by the
second party in respect of said property hereby sold.
5. · That the first party has delivered the relevant

'
documents relati!'lg to title. of said property to the
second party on execution of this agreement.
6. That as and when the presentation of the first
party W111 be required for· the completio·n of above
said transaction then the firs( party.· will present ~
himS.elf and will sign on such documents which are
necessary for complet'ion of said transaction in
favdur of the second party without any further,

i.
detnand, claim and objection 1n any manner
whatsoever.
7. That on the specific representation of the first
party that he ho'Id ·perfect title to transfer the

aforesaid property, the second party has purchased
the above said property and if this :(acts is found
otherwise as a result of which a part or whole of the
aforesaid property goes out from the hand of the
second party then the first party or his property will
indemnify the loiss thus suffered by the second 'party
at the rate of prevailing market value .
8.
.
That now the first party admits that he has
been left with no right, title, interest or concerned. of
any nature ·whatsbever in the 'said property q.pdi the
second party has beco~e the absolute ovVT1er ·of said
property by this Agreement, who now shall be fully
competent to use and enjoy the same in the manner
they would like.
9. That the second party will be fully competent
to get the above said property transferred, mutated
and substituted in their own names in the records
of Revenue, MCD., DJB, Electricity Depth, or any
other concerned authority.
10. THAT the First and Second party have
executed this Agreement, voluntarily,, without any
pressure and· in their full senses, contents of this

. I
Agreement .have been explained to them and they
admit apd.understand the sarrie as true and correct.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the first and second party
hav.e executed ·this Agreement at the place, day
month, and year first above written in presence of
following witnesses.
WITNESSES:- Sd/-
1. Sd/- Illegible FIRST PARTY
2. Sd/- Illegible
Sd/-
SECOND PARTY /TENANT
· RECEIPT
RECEIVED A Sum of Rs.l,OO,OOO /- (Rupees One
Lac Only) in respect to sale the built up Super
structure bearing House No.27, measuring about 25
Sq. Yds., situated at Fancy Silk Mills, Khyber': pass,
Delhi-54, Form:- (1) SMT. SAROJ Wife of Shri
Chander Pal, and (2) SHRI RANJEET Son of Shri
Chander Pal, bo~h residents of J-1044, Mangolpuri,
New Delhi-83, in full ahd final settlement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have executed this Receipt
at Delhi on this 22nd day of February, 2012, >in the

. .
presence of following witnesses.
WITNESSES:- Sd/-
1. Sd/- Illegible Illegible
2. Sd/- Illegible
EXECUTANT
SHRI MUKESH KUMAR
Son of Late Shri Sukal Ram,
Resident of 27, Fancy Silk Mills,
Khyer Pass, Delhi-54
2-Yl
., 'i."'
AFFIDAVIT.
1/WE, SHRl MUKESH KUMAR Son of late Shri
Sukal Ram, resident of 27, Fancy Silk Mills, Khyber
Pass, Delhi-54, · do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
1. THAT 1/We·have sold Built up Super structure
bearing House No.27, measuring about 25 Sq.Yds,
situated at Fancy Silk Mills, Khyber Pass, Delhi-54.
To (1) SMT. SAROJ Wife of Shri Chancier Pal, and (2)

-
residents of J-1044, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-83, on
the.basis of GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell, Possession
I,-etter, Recei·pt, etc.

. .
2. THAT 1/WE have received from the above said
amount in full and final consideration from the
above said purchaser.

. . .
3. : . :THAT as and when the sale pe;rmission will be

. ::. . . . . ·. . .
granted We hereby undertake to execute and sign
on such document which will be required for perfect

'
transfer of above said property in favour of the said
pur~haser, without further demand.

.. :
4. That in case any defect is found in my title over
said property then I shall be held liable and
responsible to indemnify the loss th4s suffered by
the second party at the rate of then prevailing
market value.
.: Sd/-
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this 22nct day of February, 2012,
that the contents of the above affidavit are tnie and

.. · .
correct to the best.
. of my knowledge and noth:i;ng
. .·has
• •• 0
been concealed there from.
Sd/-
QEPONENT
on A~-
.•( l.J.. -1
'·
RECEIPT
I/WE, SHRI MUKESH KUMAR Son of Late Shri
Sukal Ram, resident of 27, Fancy Silk Mills, Khyber·.
pass, Delhi-54, do hereby delvier the peaceful
physical possession of Built up Super structure
bearing House No.27, measuring about 25 Sq. Yds.,
situated Fancy Silk Mills, Khyber pass, Delhi-54, To
(1) SMT. SAROJ Wife of Shri Chancier Pal, and (2)
SHRI RANJEET Son of Shri Chancier Pal, both
resi_dents of J-1044, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-83,
today 24th day of January, 20 12 in the presence of
the· followin~ witnesses:
. Sd/- Illeg~bl~. . Ss/- Illegible

POSSESION DELIVER.ED POSSESSION TAKEN
WITNESSES:-
1. Sd/- Illegible
2. .•Sd/ -·Illegible
·· ..
EXECUTANT
I /TRUE COPY I I
24Li
ANNEXURE P-11
Tele: 23816005 B'v HAND
Composite Food Lab6ratory
ASC P-11 (Ground Floor)
Havlock Lines Luckndw
'·
Road, Timarpur, pelhi-54
FLD/ 1166/KP/Q 20 Ja:n 20~3
Police Station
Civil Lines, Timarpur Delhi
ENCROACHMENT CONSTRUCTION AT KHYBER

PASS ON MoUD LAND
1. It is ip.timat~d that Khyber Pass Land: :is· on
MoUD land and

.
Composite Food Laboratory
.
ASC,
Delhi is bestowed with the responsibility of watch &
ward duty of the same. The encroachers undertake
illegal construction activity ·on this 'land. reglilarly

'
which is an illegal occupation of gover.ninent land.
2. In the past, whenever our representatives go to
Khyber Pass, the encroachers start agitation· and
attempts are made to blame our representative of
molestation, harassment and various other fake
claims.
3. It is intimated that our representatives will go
to demolish fresh constructions on 21 Jan 2023 at
lOOOhrs. You are requested to detail a Police

i·epres.entative alongwith ladies police representative
to assist us for the same. Any further detail if
required may pl'ease be coordinated telephonically.
Sd/-
(Himanshu Baliyan)
Major
Administrative Officer
for Commanding Officer.
Copy to:- for info please.

HQ Delhi area Q (Land)
Delhi Cantt-1-0 .
Ms. Sanjutta Kabasi 1. Demolition of newly
House N0.27, 1st Floor, erected illegal construction
Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, by encroachers. at Khyber
New Delhi-110054 Pass (near PS Civil Lines)
will be undertaken by
Army authorities on 21
Jan 2023 at lOOOhrs.
Based on confirmation of
the Police reps. If willing,
you may .remain present to
~nable identification of
new cases of
encroachment for our
further necessary action.
2. This · is. for your
infon;nation ~d necessary
action.
I /TRUE COPY I I
ANNEXURE·P-12
Speed Post
Government of India
Ministry of Hous1ng arid Urban Affairs·
Land & Development Office
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
No.L&DO/L-1!1/8/3/(40)/40. I)(l.teA: 16;.~.,

~
.~if~··' A~ :; ,.'
~, '\
To '
.' ....~"'·-~ '~4' .. .
'~>'{{(: ii.?- ' • ,f.~
'!i''
·'. -~~-
~~~ ·\
~'VP"
· l..,) ~,..
~~ '\
·:-.r·· .)
Sh. Shubhankar Kabasi, . t
./ J:!l'~~ ,. ·' .,.. ~/
House No.27, I Floor, .,~ ., .. : -:. . ,...
Near Fancy Silk Mill Civil Lines, "-\~' ," ~·~~
.~~.-. .~;,;~<.····'
' ........
Civil Line, Delhi-110054 ~\,,_·,·-.,~
\, ......
,. ~,:p-·
Yt.'\:.~.
'
,... ~
··
\. ., ·. .( . $:,;--:.~·- ,. . :· . ·"
Sub: Public Grievance Application· ·... _qf'' Sh.
Shubhankar Kabasi filed on .. ,1 (?.'4.~·2023
.,
regarding forgery and criminal intimidation
by Ranjeet and Saroj towards Sh.
Shubhankar Kabasi in rjo H.No.27, Civil
Lines, Khyber Pass, Delhi.
Ref: Public Grievance No. bOURD/E/2023/

0005629 DATED 16.4.2023.
Sir,
,.
I am directed to refer to your Public Grievance
Application No.DOURD /E/2023/0005629' dated
16.4.20.23 ·on the subject mentioned above. The
matter has been examined.
2. In this context, it is stated that the own_ersliip
of the land in question vests with the Government of

; .
As per records available, the

India; only.
Complainant as well as Ranjeet, Saroj and Mukesh
(names men,tioned in the grievance) are merely
encroachers/unauthorized occupants of land/
property in question. The Complainant has also
stated hiJ1iself that he has no registered documents
in respect of the land/property in question. The
·comm'ercial land in question comes under the Re-
development of Khyber Pass area into District
Center (as per DDA's Master, ~Plan -20~1) which is
to· be re-developed by DDA as per ,Govt Policy after

' '
the removal of unauthorized occupancy /illegal
encroachment~ from different sites of Khyber Pass·,
Civil Lines, Delhi.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Ashok Bawal)
Dy. Land & Development Officer
Tel No.23061325
Copy to:
1. PG Cell, Ministry of Housing and Urban
Affairs, Nirman Bhawan New Delhi
2. DyL&DO(V), Coordination Section.
I /TRUE COPY I I
$tate of_..___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,_ l .
. ·. S ect1o r1 - - - -
. IN THE SUP.~EME co·URT OF I.NDIA

CIVIL I 9RIMINAL I APP.EYLATE I ORIGINAL.JURI.SDICTION
I.A./ Criminal Misc. Petition N9 .................................................... 0f 20
Special Leave Petition (Civil/ Criminal) N~ .................................. Pf"'io. ·.
. . . / ... \ ' \
Civil/Criminal Appeal/Transfe-r I Writ Petition No ... : ............ .:::.. 11f!o·~'t~z.Q.. ··.· .\
.-··
.-- "~..-- · (';..
tJ-!1.• v.... '\
In The Matter Of:
-----.---.....
.
~ ~--~ 1/ , . -...-~. :· (;. .\v~
~~ ~\ ~· •. -It~ ~··
.-
~:··.·\
.:rPttJ.tlon~r(s)
1
\\ .
. ~ERSUS. ~-~ ~\ ~ Ap~:~~; ~~li >, >

\.V\..~'L?.2:.A " • \,. \ .·~:~;l\d~'d~·dent (s')
.... \~ I<"'\\'\\<"" ...........
lNQE.X $)F Fll.l&~-v:~/"

..
DESCR.IPTION : .·· <
·~T---~-------·-------------- ~ ~· ~.
S.No. COPIES COURT FEES

~ . .
1. . g~u'al ~ve; ~kh'on {f' ~o. ..---- l rooj. .
2. JJ.tG·~k~t-1. ,
-·--'-t...---~-,.--~:---------.-----"---+..;.._---+--:·--·-----
.. . /,f-1 2of. . . __.

,_._
'lrt--1 1~~!,....
li •
1
·n\~ .. ~ .
1\ /1!!:-CJ..~~
. ~rlv .
Advocate for,U'\e P~tltloner (s) I App~llant (s)
.
/'I r o··,.,
·fJ.
I
/' ll
.~ .- ::./ ~.
1
'
·...
'
Respondent'(s):Caveator I fntervenor
~·
., . '
'•
.... -·.......... ..
~~~
· VAKA.LATNAMA
(SCRO.rder IV Rule 1S)
IN THE SUPREME·COURT OF INDIA
.. ' .Smt..iShri. . · ofthe.

\s.u'preme Court of India to ac and appear form . s in the above matter and.on my/our behaif to.
c<lnduct and prosec te (or defend) the 'same and. to appear in all proceedings t~at may be .
taken in .respect of 'any application connected with ~he same or any dec.re.e or order passed ·
theiri.n-; includi~g proceedings in taxation and applications for review, to fil.e·a.nd.obtain.return of
documents arid to· deposit and receive nioney in my I our behalf ·in the said matter anti to
·represent me/us and to take all necessary step. on my/our behalf in the· said matter. 1/We agree to
ratify all acts done bythe aforesaid Advocate in pursuance on this authorits.
·.. . · . Dated this the 1
~ ft-. ~
1
day of 2023
Acceptad, Identified & Certified
fA tz VIP f5A~-.fe:~ ·)
C~1\..Vo. '-r~s._
. .. . .. . .
~~-~ ~s)/AppenUOnt(s) Respoitdenls/ Caveator
~~~MEMO OF.APPEARANCE · .
To,
The Registrar
· Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi...
. Sir, ·.
. Please ~riter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)/Respondent(S)/ ... ·~ ..;...•
· Opposite Parties /Intervener in the mentioned· above · ·' ·
~=~~~~~:;. 4kJ!sl1J day~f ~/ 2023
~ ALt . jt6/bS'fJ5T"D
(/1'/(Uf !3AtUt:;';e.JGE·).· .
..• .·• Dated•.:•• ,~~!.!-}--~~),· · . Advocate f~r the · · ··.
Petitioner(s)iAppenllant(s) Respondents/ Caveator
·· ·
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW
DELHI,
RSA NO. 208/2023
MEMO OF PARTIES
.·
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUBHRA KABASI
W /0 LT. SH. MANORANJAN KABASI
R/0 HOUSE NO. 27, 1sT FLOOR, KHYBER PASS,
CIVIL LINES, DELHI- 110054 ... APPELLANT
V/S
RANJEET
S/0 SH. CHANDERPAL
R/0 J-1044, MANGOLPURI, DELHI- 110083
... RESPONDENT
-._,
MR. ARUP BANERJEE

ADVOCATE ON RECORD
·<: .
''•, I
ARuB-a·A~EE
Advocate-on-Record (A.O .R..COde-1581 )
The Supreme Court of India
Ch. Nt.438, Block·D, New Add I. Building Complex
The Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001
~ LA. NO. _ _ OF 2023
.- ,J
. INDEX ....
·-
S.No. Particulars . Pages
'
. 1-46
1. ~·NO. OF 2023
Application for Impleadment I
'
2. ANNEXURE A-1 .......
"":/'?
A copy of the reply dated
16.05.2023 vide No. L&D.O I 1-III.
/8/3/(40)/40 from Land &'.
Development Office,· Nirman
Bhawan, :New Delhi along with its
original i
PAPER-BOOK
ADVOCATE FOR THE PET [TIONER:

·'t:t· g,_:. ,. lt Rl)_?Jli ~t g. IC ~E.
' • ' • • I •
I.A. NO. ___ OF 2023'

IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF
2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUBHRA KABASI
VERSUS
RANJEET
RESPONDENT N0.2
TO
'-· HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE
APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED;
o 10 o I

. .
1. That the present Special Leave Petition has
been filed against the impugned judgment of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi ~ated 98.11.2023 i;n RS~ No.

I 0 o' I.
208/2023 titled 'Subhra Kabasi v. RanJ.eet' whereby,
the second appeal u.js 100 ·r/w 42 of CPC ·was

~ h
.t''\
·,·
dismissed. against the impugned judgment dated
10.10.2023 passed by Ld. ADJ 03, Tis Hazari Courts
in RCA DJ 24/2023 and confirmed the impugned
decree dated 14.08.2019 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
passed by Ld. Trial Court, Tis Hazari Courts in CS
SCJ 1508/2018.
2. · That by way of the present Application,
App_licant~ ~~re~r;t are sc:eking . iii?-pleadment of
Director, Land and Development Office, Ministry of
Urban and Development (hereinafter 'L&DO') as
responde~t no.2 as necess·ary and/ or. proper parties

.I '•,'
·,
in_ the instant Special Leave Petition: It 'is submitted
that::the department Land and Development Office
her~in were not party before the' Hon'ble High Court
of D~lhi in the proceedings leading to this SLP.

1
3 .. :That the applicant received· a reply dated
16.05.2023 vide No. L&DO/L-III/8/3/(40)/40 from

'!
Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi to her . public gnevance No.
DOURD/E/2023/0005629 dated 16.04.2023. A
copy of the reply dated 16.05.2023 vide No. L&DO /L-
III/8/3/(40)/40 from Land & Development Office,

5
~ Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi along with its original is
I
annexed as Annexure A-1 (Pgs. 7 to 9). The reply
states as under:
·. .
"2. In this context, it 1s stateq . that the
ownership of the land in question vests with the
Government of India only. As per records
available, the complEtinant. as' 'weli as Ranjeet,
Saroj and Mukesh are merely encroachers I
unauthorized occupants of land/ property in
question. The complainant has also stated that
he has no registered documents in respect of
the land/ property in question. The land in
question comes under the Re-development of
Khyber Pass area into Commercial District
Centre (as per DDA's Master Plan-2021) which
is to be redeveloped by DDA as per Govt ·Policy
after the removal of unauthorized
occupancy1illegal ·encroachments from different
sites of Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi"
4. That the applicant l.s aggrieved by the dismissal
order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi· as the
Second appeal was dismissed vide order dated

4
08.11.2023 without deciding the substantial
question of law as to whether the
trespassersjurtauthorized occupants have the right
to enter into rent agreements in relation to the land
whose ownership vests with the government of India
only .and w1tho,u,t appreciating the facts, reached· an
erroneous
. . conclusion,
.
overlooking :and ignoring the
substantial and· procedural law, judicial precedents,
pleadings, anq ~documents on record. Hence, the
prese.nt petition
5. That the department Land and Development
Office, Ministry' of Urban and Development are
necessary and proper party . to. the present
proceedings and· has a direct and subsisting interest
in the subject matter of the present proceedings.
Further, legal rights and interests of the Applicant
will be seri<?usly prejudiced if the department L & DO
is not heard in the present matter.
6. That the presence of the department L & DO is
necessary in order to enable this Hon 1ble Court to
effectually
• ,
an~. cqmpletely adjudicate upon issue
0 • 0
involved in the present ·matter, as the Applic'ant 1s
the main aggrieved party whose rights shall be

i
affected by any order(s) passed by this Hon'ble· Court.
7. That by adding the department L & DO as
respondent no. 1 to the array of parties, no preju~lice

'.
will be ca~sed t~ the parties already on · r:ec'ord;
neither will fair trial of the questions in controversy
be prejudiced. On the other hand, not making the
department L & DO p~ty to ~he present proceec;Iings

• • • 0 ••
will cause serious prejudice to the ~ights of the
Applicant.
8. That it is, therefore most respectfully pr.ayed
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to implead
the department L & DO as party Respondent No. 2 in

......
"--- the present Special Leave Petition otherwise the
Applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
9. The Applicant has not filed any other or similar
application on similar issue before this Hon 'ble Court
·.or any other Court in the country.
10. That the ,Application is made bonafide and 1n
the interest of justiCe.

PRAYER
this· Hon'ble
.. Court
.
may graciously be pleased to: - :
(a) Allow the present application Jor impleadment
and direct impleadment of Director, Land .and
Develop!J;l~nt. Office; Ministry· of Urban
Development as party Respondent rio. 2 in the

'
present Special Leave Petition; and
(b) Allow the Director of department Land and
Development Office, Ministry of Urban
Development to intervene in the. present Special
Leave Petition.
(c) pass such other and further order/orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on
the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT

AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
DRAWN BY:
{Ms. Sanju~ta Kabasi)
·ADVOCATE
· · MR·. ARuP·'SAN,;:.~J'&P.
FI~ED O.N: ;~~~~· ;,_t!>;S· Advocate for the Petitioner
ANNEXURE A-1
Speed Post
Government of India
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs ·.
Land & Development Office '
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
No.L&DO /L-III/8/3/ (40)/ 40 Dated: 16.05.2023
To
Sh.Shubhankar Kabasi,
House No.27, I Floor,
Near Fancy Silk Mill Civil Lines,
Civil Line, Dellii-1'10054
Sub: PUblic Grievance Application·. ·of Sh.

Shubhankar Kabasi filed on 16.4.2023
regarding forgery and criminal intimidation
by Ranjeet and Saroj towards Sh.
Shubhankar Kabasi. in rjo H.N,o.27, .Civil
Lines; Khyber Pass, Delhi.' ..
Ref: Public Grievance No. DOURD/E/2023/

0005629 DATED 16A.2023 ..
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your PubliG Grievance
Application No.DOURD/E/2023/0005629 dated
16.4.2023 on the subject mentioned above. The

.
2. In this context, it is stated that the ownership
of th~ land in question vests with the Government of
. .
·~~
·'\'"~
.Jndia . only. As per records~ available, the
Complainant as well as Ranjeet, Saroj and Mukesh

. . . .
(names mentioned in the grievance) are merely
encroachers/unauthorized o·ccupants of land/
property in question. The Complainant has also
stated himself that he has no register~d documents
in respect of the land/ property in question. The
commercial land in question comes· under the Re-
development of Khyber Pass area into District
Center (as per DDA's Master, Plan -2021) which is
to be re-developed by DDA as per Govt Policy after
the removal of unauthorized occupancy /illegal
encroachments from different sites of Khyber Pass,
Civil Lines, Delhi.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Ashok Bawal)
Dy: Larid & Deveiopment Officer
Tel No.23061325
Copy to:
1. PG Cell, Ministry of Housing and Urban
.Affairs, Nirman Bhawan New Delhi
2. · ::DyL&DO(V), Coordination Section.
I /TRUE COPY I I
'.
;
l •
q
'Gove·rnmerit of India
Ministry of Housing. and Urban Affairs
·.·Land & Development Office . .·. --: ·
. . . · . Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi .. . ." /···~ :· -. ~%:.
No:L&DO/L-IIV8(3/(40)/ yo. . . . ;.,~ ~q\~ated: .
To ,. ~\) '
~ ~h._Sbubhankar Kabasi, ·./)" ~P~''--~~· ''\~ ·: . .
House No.27,·I Floor, ···.:/ ~'\v ~~ ,, '~-~./.r ·'
Near Fancy _Silk ~ill Ciyil Lines; \ · '~...,. ,-{\o:-: ...,.../ ...
Civil Line, Delhi-1l_0054 . ~ <.. '\ (~~~-.;~· _
. /·
. \, . .". . . ·. ,.. (;ut . . . ~··#
\, . .... \ .._... .......··
~._, "'• ... ~~Y r,..,.
Sub: Public Grievance Application of Sh.Shubhankar ··,Kaq~k filed on 16.4.2023
regarding forgery and criminal intimidation. by··,R~ee,t/~nd Saroj towards
Sh.ShubhJr.k:::r ~nbasi i.n r/o H.No.27, Civii Lines, Khy~;..¥-'ass, Delhi.
Ref: Public Grievance No. DOURD/E/2023/0005629 DATED 16.4.2023
SiG ~·
I am directed to . ·refer to your Public Grievance Application
No.DOURD/E/2023/0005629 dated 16.4.2023 on the subject mentioned above. The
2. In this context, it is stated that the ownership of the land in question vests with
the G9vernment of India only. As per records available, the Complainant as well as
Ranjeet, Saroj and Mukesh ( names mentioned in · the grievance) are merely
encroachers/unauthorised occupants orland/property in question. The Complainant has
also stated himself that he has no registered documents in respect of the land/property
in question. The land in question comes under the.Re-development of Khyber Pass area
into commercial District Centre (as per DDA's ·Master Plan -2021) which is to be' re-
developed by- DDA as per Govt Policy after the removal of unauthorised occupancy/ill~gal
encroachments from ~iffer.ent sites of Khyber Pass, Ci.vil Lines, Delhi.
~.
Yours faithfully,
~~$
(Ashok Bcfwal) -
Dy_.Lan_~ & pevelopment Officer
Tele No.23061325
Copy t9:
1. ·PG Cell, Ministry of Housing and urban Affairs, Nirman Bhawan New Delhi
2. DyL&DO(V), Coordination Section.
/
Dy.~ar.td &. Development Officer
Tele. No.23061325
..

Format of Entire SLP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Format of Entire SLP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Format of Entire SLP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

. .

·Exc.ept_ curihg ··the de.fects.· Nothing has been

Other (lA FOR AVINASH

Other ( COUNT ALL

Limitation Renort- Generated on : 01-12-2023 11:52 am

! Cause Title : : SUBHRA KABASI Vs RANJEET

~ Date of Order: (A):··· ... i 08-11-2023

Total Days : (C) = (B-A) . 21

: Copy Ready on : (D) ''

~opy Applied on : (E) , . ·

. Total Days (D-E) : (F) .0

: Total Holidays :· (G) . i 0

, limitation days : (H) : 90

• Total Days : [ C-(F+G+H)] -69

: Limitation ; PETITION HAS BEEN FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS

w· ont n'ts of the petition, applications and accompanying.., -..9~-.-----i

o?;r-·l~t;,t~ C fi~em-and decree ·appealed fwrn and order granting i

court fee has been filed. 1

11. The Annexures referred t m thepetition-·aretru·e~copiesofr--·-·---- -·--- --1

The relev · t provisions of the constituti.ons., statutes, YES i No ·

. Appendix to the SLP. , · .

i (b) The. facts-constituting the cause O'f action;

1 involving the petitioners or any :of the petitioners, which has

(Rupees One Thou~an9,'Nii]£t;~undred ~ <;;>nly) o ~~:

uthentic;lty of tjll; e,-Court fae~rec~lpt sho~ld b~ verified at www.shcilestamp.:·com . cAAy.,Pisctep~ncy In ttia

81. Particulars of Document Page No. of :gart of Remarks

2. Of:fice . ~ Report ·on A A

True copy of the 1.-1~

~-:·~+-p~a:J New Delhi in

Central Distt. Tis

Tl;l.:e. · copy of the

pa$.sed by the Ld.

the petitio,ner before

True ~opy of the Letter ..

26. ANNEXURE P-12 2-y &·--2.\i r

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2023 ,/~:,~ ~

1. The petition is/are within time. '· ,.:

2. The petition is barred by time and there is. delay

of days delay has been filed.

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

0 Central Act: (Title): N.A.

1. NATURE OF ,MATTERV21'"Civil Civil

(b) E-mail ID: NA

I Mobile phone number: NA

Date of Section 4 Nil

o Senior citizen > 65 years o

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Arising out of the · impugned finaL j'udgment/·~d ,,s·~ . .;~~7

IN THE MATTER OF: .. :· ·. ..

Subhra Kabasi ... Petitioner

Ranjeet ... Responclen t

[FOR INDEX:: KIN'DLY SEE INSIDE] f

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: 1'·1 R.· !+ R,U P!JiiNB.t..-;J£ t:.

civil suit in the court of Civil Judge-06, Tis Haza.ri I •

Courts against Sn1t. Subhra Kabasi, the Petitioner,

for possession, rnesne profits, and permanent

injunction of property situated at property bearing

no. 27, 1st floor,. Khyber Pass,. Civil Lines, Delhi.

·--- Ranjeet claims co-ownership \Vith his mother namely