SAROJ KUMARI Vs. RAMESH CHAND VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is filed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 29.4.2013 by which the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed.

(2.) The only issue which is argued before this Court, and which was also the main issue urged before the court below was that whether the respondent is the owner/landlord of the suit premises. The issue with respect to whether the respondent herein, petitioner before the trial court, was the owner/landlord arose inasmuch as respondent herein (landlord) had purchased the suit property from the petitioner herein, respondent before the trial court. The case of the respondent herein before the Additional Rent Controller was that petitioner herein had executed the usual documents being the agreement to sell, power of attorney, Will etc transferring rights in the suit property in favour of the present respondent on 3.4.2001. These documents including the general power of attorney which was duly registered with the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi. The petitioner herein admittedly handed over all the title documents of the suit property to the respondent herein simultaneous to the execution of the documents. In the general power of attorney which is registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, signatures of the husband of the present petitioner are stated to exist.

(3.) I do not find any error in the conclusion of the trial court that the petitioner herein had sold rights in the suit property to the respondent herein by means of the documentation dated 3.4.2001. I may note that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 alongwith the connected provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 were amended by Act 48 of the year 2001 which became applicable w.e.f 25.9.2001 only. The documents executed prior to this date did not require any stamping or registration in terms of the subsequently amended provisions and the observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., 2011 183 DLT 1). In fact, Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. lays down the ratio and protects the documents executed prior to 2001 by observing that the agreement to sell in the nature of part performance will have the necessary benefit in terms of provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also that the power of attorney given for consideration would be irrevocable in terms of Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872.