LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-203

ANJALI BANSAL AND ANR. Vs. INDRA RANI

Decided On April 18, 2017
Anjali Bansal And Anr. Appellant
V/S
Indra Rani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/defendants against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the First Appellate Court dated 23.12.2015 and the Trial Court dated 10.7.2015; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for possession, recovery of rent and damages/mesne profits filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants with respect to the basement of the property bearing no. B-181-A, admeasuring 70 sq. yds. Khasra no. 464, Village Khanpur now known as B-Block, Duggal Colony, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). It may be noted that appellants/defendants are wife and husband.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for possession, recovery of rent and damages with respect to the suit property pleading that the rights in the suit property were transferred in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 in terms of the documents dated 28.12.2010 being the Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit receipt and Will. The consideration paid for the suit property under these documents proved collectively as Ex. PW1/A, was a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that since some goods of the appellant no.2/defendant no.2, and who was the husband of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1/seller, were lying in the suit property, accordingly, the basement/suit property was given on rent to the appellant no.2/defendant no.2 at rent of Rs. 8000/- per month. Appellants after expiry of lease period however refused to vacate the suit property, and therefore, the tenancy was terminated by the legal notice dated 2.12.2012, Ex.PW1/D, and which since did not have the desired effect, the subject suit came to be filed.

(3.) Appellants/defendants contested the suit by pleading that the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 had signed the documents Ex.PW1/A (colly) in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in blank because respondent/plaintiff wanted to take a bank loan. Since this bank loan did not come through, the documents were treated as finished and appellants/defendants believed the explanation of the respondent/plaintiff that the documents in question with respect to the basement remained with the bank. This happened in the year 2010. The case of the appellants/defendants further was that since the basement being the suit property could not be sold to the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff then proposed to purchase one shop out of the three shops on the ground floor of the suit property and that once again for the shop the appellants/defendants executed blank documents in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for the purpose of the respondent/plaintiff obtaining a bank loan. Again this bank loan could not be obtained for the shop, and therefore, the blank documents executed with respect to the shop became of no use and effect. It is further pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of the receipt dated 5.12.2010 for the basement of the suit property as advance, and a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- dated 28.7.2012 was given by the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for returning of the part of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- received by the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 under the receipt dated 5.12.2010. Accordingly, it was contended that the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 continued to be the owner of the basement/suit property, as also the shop in the property and that the subject suit had to be dismissed because there was no tenancy between the appellant no.2/defendant no.2 and the respondent/plaintiff for the suit property.