YOGENDER PRASAD AGGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.A. 37838/2019

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the coowner of the property bearing no. 289, Gurudwara Road, Punjabi Bagh, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Initially in the year 1966 late Sh. Mangat Ram Aggarwal, father of the petitioner, resident of F-470, 471 and 472, Krishna Gali, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi was inducted as a tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor of the said property. After the death of Sh. Mangat Ram Aggarwal, the petitioner inherited the tenancy rights and continued to pay rent which was collected by the grand-father of the complainant. The complainant along with other co-owners had filed an eviction petition no. RC/ARC/5022/2016 against the petitioner and his brother Tek Chand Aggarwal for eviction from the property in question in the year 2014. In those proceedings, the petitioner had throughout admitted himself to be the tenant having inherited the tenancy rights from his late father but during the pendency of the eviction petition the petitioner along with his co-accused filed an application to place on record certain documents claiming themselves to be the owners of the property in question. The petitioner claimed that his father has purchased the property in question from the grandfather of the complainant. It is alleged that the ownership documents filed by the petitioner in the court below consisting of agreement to sell, affidavit, Will, power of attorney, all dated 28.4.1982 are forged and fabricated and the signatures on these documents of grandfather of the complainant have been copied after seeing the rent receipts issued by him. It is further alleged by the complainant that in an earlier suit titled as Tek Chand Aggarwal and Anr. Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors filed in the year 2013, the petitioner and coaccused had admitted and stated on affidavit that they were the tenants in the property in question. In a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 5672/2013 filed before this Court the petitioner and the co-accused had once again admitted themselves to be the tenants in the property, and now on the basis of the aforementioned forged and fabricated documents they are claiming themselves to be the owner thereof.

(3.) It is urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted by him that the documents were only located by the petitioner and his co-accused in the year 2015 which were lying in possession of their younger brother with whom they were having dispute. They only came to know about these documents from their younger brother and accordingly they had filed an application before the civil court for taking these documents on record. It is further urged that the father of the petitioner is the owner of the property in question by virtue of these documents having purchased from the grandfather of the complainant. It is further urged that the complainant is putting uncalled pressure on the petitioner and his coaccused who is his brother to vacate the property in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation and has handed over all the original documents to the IO and no useful purpose will be served by sending him to custody.