PARVEEN SINGH Vs. AMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amir Singh, respondent no.1 (plaintiff) filed a suit claiming to be the exclusive owner of property admeasuring 125 sq. yds. being plot no. 7/2 Khasra No. 932 situated in Ram Nagar Colony in the revenue estate of Village Nawada, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059, which had come to his share pursuant to a Family Settlement with his brothers in 1975. The Settlement was reduced to writing on 10.08.1993. In the year 1991, he constructed some structure thereon of which one shop was let out to defendant no.2 (appellant no.2) on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400/-. Over the years, the rent of the suit property was increased to Rs. 2,500/- per month. It is this shop which is in dispute.

(2.) After June 2000, the tenant Ms. Ram Kaur (appellant no.2) wife of late Mr. Pratap Singh, stopped paying the rent. Amir Singh issued a Legal Notice dated 17.01.2001, posted it on 18.01.2001 by Registered Letter and UPC. It was the plaintiffs' case that instead of responding appropriately to the Legal Notice, the defendant (appellant no.1) started projecting himself as the owner of the said shop, as having purchased it for a consideration of Rs. 3 lacs by way of Power of Attorney and other supporting papers including a Will, purportedly issued by Roshal Lal, son of Amir Singh. The plaintiff contended that he had never issued any authority to his son Roshan Lal, to execute any such documents, therefore, the documents which were relied upon by the defendants were forged or of no consequence. Hence, the documents were liable to be declared null and void. Plaintiff no.2 grandson and General Power of Attorney holder of Amir Singh, was so arrayed because the latter had become old and infirm and unable to pursue the case himself. The Attorney claimed to have relevant knowledge and information about the facts of the case. On the contrary, however, the defendants/ appellants had contended that they were the rightful owners of the property; that Amir Singh had executed a document in favour of his son Roshan Lal for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- in July, 1992 and on that basis the shop (suit property) was let out to Ram Kaur in August, 1992 at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/-.

(3.) At some stage, Roshan Lal tried to dispossess Ram Kaur from the property, but in a suit for injunction, Roshan Lal had made a statement that he would not dispossess the tenant except by due process of law. A subsequent endeavour of said Roshan Lal to disconnect the electricity connection from the rented premises, was also disposed-off on his statement that he had no objection if the tenant Ram Kaur, got a connection in her own name. Later on the rent was deposited in the court of the Rent Controller because Roshan Lal refused to accept the same.