RAMA DEVI Vs. PUNAM CHAND AGGRWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 cpc before the trial judge. The said application was allowed to the extent that the decree for possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the defendant/appellant was passed. It was further ordered that the suit shall continue with respect to the recovery of rent and the quantum of mense profits towards use and occupational charges of the said property by the defendant/appellant. Aggrieved by that order, the appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court which, too, was dismissed vide order dated 22nd December, 2006, hence this second appeal. Let us now turn to the facts of this case.

(2.) LEKH Raj was the owner/landlord of house No. RZ-20q Palam Road, east Sagar Pur, New Delhi. Punam Chand Aggarwal, the respondent/plaintiff in this case claimed that he become the owner of the above-said property by virtue of GPA dated 23rd July, 1996. The appellant, smt. Rama Devi is a tenant in the said house. The respondent claimed that the rate of rent of the disputed property is Rs. 2250/- per month. The respondent filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi rent Control Act against the appellant Smt. Rama Devi on 6th November, 1997. The ex parte eviction order was passed by the learned Additional Rent controller. The appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex parte eviction order under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The said application was dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Rent Control tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal ordered that the rent be paid to the respondent under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act. Thereafter, it remanded back the case before the learned Rent Controller. In the meantime, the Apex court held that the Delhi Rent Control Act does not extend to the locality of sagarpur area in which the suit property is situated. Consequently, the respondent withdrew the above-said eviction petition. The respondent gave notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act to the appellant on 25th January, 2001. Ultimately, he filed the instant suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and for damages and occupational charges.

(3.) THE appellant contested the instant suit. The appellant claimed that the monthly rate of rent is Rs. 120/- per month. He alleged that the respondent has manipulated two fake rent receipts in the sum of Rs. 4500/-by forging the signatures of the appellant thereon. Again, the case of the respondent was based on the above-said two receipts in writing and handwriting examiner has also affirmed this fact. The factum of transfer of above-said property in favour of the respondent was categorically denied. It was explained that the respondent had filed a civil suit bearing No. 197/1996 titled as Smt. Rama Devi v. Lekh Raj on 25th April, 1996 against the same tenanted property for permanent injunction and mandatory direction against Lekh Raj. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant and against Lekh Raj restraining him from creating any hindrance, interference in the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the property in question by the appellant. The crucial fact is that appellant admitted that during the course of the said civil suit Lekh Raj had filed an application under Section 151 cpc on 26th August, 1996, wherein he stated that he had already sold the tenanted property to the respondent. In his above-said eviction petition the respondent/plaintiff had stated that he had purchased the above-said property from Lekh Raj on 29th February, 1996. On 23rd July, 1997 the respondent/plaintiff had sent a legal notice for demand of arrears of rent to the appellant/defendant. The appellant had responded to the respondent's/plaintiff's notice dated 23rd July, 1997, wherein he had asked him to send the documents relating to the above-said transaction and the respondent/plaintiff was further requested to ask Lekh Raj to send an attornment letter to the appellant. However, no attornmnet letter was received.