NIRMALA DEVI Vs. JAI DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RSA 221/2016

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Civil Suit No. 177/2012 was filed by Sh.Anand Dev Sharma (deceased now represented through his legal heirs Smt.Nirmala Devi, the appellant No.1 and their children, appellant Nos.2 to 11) for possession and damages/mesne profits in respect of the shop bearing No.RZ-450-C, Raj Nagar, Part-I, Palam Colony, New Delhi pleading that the respondent/defendant Jai Dutt was inducted as a tenant in respect of a shop shown as red in the site plan annexed with the plaint. At the time of institution of suit, the last paid rent was Rs. 700.00per month. The tenancy of the respondent/defendant was terminated by the landlord vide legal notice dated 11th April, 201 The tenancy stood terminated with effect from 30th April, 201 It was also pleaded that suit property is not governed by Delhi Rent Control Act. The prevalent market rent of the suit property was pleaded to be Rs. 10,000.00 per month. The appellants/plaintiffs sought a decree for possession in respect of the suit property as well damages @ Rs. 300.00 per day.

(3.) In the written statement, the respondent/defendant took the plea that in the year 1986 he had entered into an agreement for sale in respect of suit property for a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 with the owner/landlord (plaintiff). At the time of execution of sale agreement, he had paid Rs. 5,000.00 towards advance and remaining Rs. 35,000.00 was paid in cash later in the presence of the witnesses. It was further pleaded that after execution of agreement Ex.P1 in 1986, he has not paid any rent to the landlord. The defence taken is that possession of the respondent/defendant was protected under Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, being transferred to him pursuant to part performance to the sale contract. The three rent receipts for the period Feb. to April, 2012 placed on record by the appellants/plaintiffs were denied alleging the same to be forged and fabricated taking the plea that after entering into an agreement in 1986, there was no question of paying any rent to the appellants/plaintiff.