Regular Second Appeal admitting a suit granted injunctions and recovery of mesne profits. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding no substantial question of law arose due to lack of evidence for tenancy and procedural impropriety challenging findings on fact.
Appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law found; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
% Date of decision: 10th August, 2018 + RSA 110/2018 & CM No.30871/2018 (for stay)
RAM PAL SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jagdish Kumar Solanki, Adv. versus
GOPI NATH PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RSA 110/2018 Page 1 of 10
the counsel for the appellant/defendant, after some arguments, sought adjournment. The counsel for the appellant/defendant states that the costs imposed on 3rd August, 2018 have been deposited and the Court Master confirms.
RSA 110/2018 Page 2 of 10
of which complaint was made by the respondent/plaintiff; (vi) that the respondent/plaintiff, vide notice dated 17th August, 2000, called upon the appellant/defendant to stop committing theft of electricity in the property of the respondent/plaintiff; (vii) that the appellant/defendant thereafter attempted to encroach on other portions of the property and instituted a suit against the respondent/plaintiff, claiming to be the tenant in the servant quarter under the respondent/plaintiff and seeking to restrain the respondent/plaintiff from forcibly dispossessing the appellant/defendant from the said servant quarter; (viii) the respondent/plaintiff, vide notice dated 2nd February, 2001, terminated the licence of the appellant/defendant and called upon the appellant/defendant to vacate the servant quarter and informed him that if he did not, mesne profits also shall be claimed from him; and, (ix) that since the appellant/defendant did not comply with the notice, the suit was being filed for the reliefs aforesaid.
RSA 110/2018 Page 3 of 10
2. Whether the defendant has taken the suit premises for use and occupation as servant quarter as licensee? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of damage/mesne profit of Rs.2,100/- for the period of March 2001 with interest? OPP
4. Relief.”
and the following additional issues were framed on 13th October, 2012, 5th February, 2013 and 17th February, 2014 respectively:-
“3A Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD”
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP”
“Whether the suit is bad for non-joined of necessary party? OPD”
RSA 110/2018 Page 4 of 10
appellant/defendant had admitted having been inducted into possession of the premises by Mukesh Gupta, Rajesh Gupta and Mahesh Gupta who were the directors of the respondent/plaintiff; (iv) it was not the case of the appellant/defendant that Mukesh Gupta, Rajesh Gupta and Mahesh Gupta were the owners in their individual capacity and thus induction by the respondent/plaintiff of the appellant/defendant into the premises stood admitted; (v) that the appellant/defendant having admitted to have come into possession of the servant quarter from the respondent/plaintiff, was not entitled to challenge the title of the respondent/plaintiff; (vi) that though the appellant/defendant had denied working for the respondent/plaintiff but the appellant/defendant failed to cross-examine the director of the respondent/plaintiff on the said aspect and allowed the testimony of the director of the respondent/plaintiff in this respect to go unrebutted; (vii) that though the appellant/defendant had claimed execution of a tenancy agreement, further pleading that no copy thereof was furnished to him, but in his statement in another suit between the parties, had denied execution of any Rent Agreement; (viii) that the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellant/defendant was hearsay; (ix) that the appellant/defendant had failed to prove any tenancy or payment of rent at Rs.82/- per month; and, (x) the respondent/plaintiff had proved the prevalent letting value of the servant quarter to be at Rs.2,100/- per month.
RSA 110/2018 Page 5 of 10
however, merely because with other occupiers of the property, respondent/plaintiff has a relationship of landlord and tenant, had no bearing on the relationship of the respondent/plaintiff with the appellant/defendant; (iii) there was thus no merit in the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC; (iv) that the deposition of the appellant/defendant was that besides the respondent/plaintiff, there were other owners also of the property; (v) however the documents proved by the appellant/defendant himself and the documents proved by the respondent/plaintiff proved the respondent/plaintiff to be the owner of the property; (vi) it has been held by this Court in Prem Pal Singh Vs. Jugal Kishore Gupta 1993 (50) DLT 49 and in Vikas Jain Vs. Naresh Kumar 2012 SCC OnLine Del 778 that there was no presumption, from occupation, of a tenancy; (vii) that the stand of the appellant/defendant, was not consistent; while the appellant/defendant in the suit for injunction filed by him stated that he was in possession of a tin shed, the appellant/defendant, during his evidence stated that he was in possession of two rooms; and, (viii) none of the witnesses examined by the appellant/defendant proved tenancy of the appellant/defendant under the respondent/plaintiff.
RSA 110/2018 Page 6 of 10
appellant/defendant was working for the respondent/plaintiff but was doing job work with respect to furniture. However, on enquiry whether there is any evidence with respect to the same, the answer is in the negative.
RSA 110/2018 Page 7 of 10
of the paper book, being the cross-examination of the director of the respondent/plaintiff by the Advocate for the appellant/defendant, where the said director of the respondent/plaintiff has admitted having not filed any accounts of the respondent/plaintiff before the Court and denied that the same were not filed because they would have shown receipt of rental income from the appellant/defendant.
RSA 110/2018 Page 8 of 10
RSA 110/2018 Page 9 of 10
Second Appeal. Supreme Court, in Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134 held that merely because on appreciation of evidence another view is also possible, would not clothe the High Court to assume jurisdiction on issue of fact framed by the Suit Court, by terming the question as substantial question of law.
Dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 10, 2018 ‘pp’
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal raises any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC.
Whether the appellant can lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to prove tenancy.
Whether service of notice of termination of licence is mandatory for filing a suit for possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Pal Singh Vs. Jugal Kishore GuptaDistinguished¶31
Prem Pal Singh Vs. Jugal Kishore Gupta 1993 (50) DLT 49 · Who else cites this
Vikas Jain Vs. Naresh KumarDistinguished¶31
Vikas Jain Vs. Naresh Kumar 2012 SCC OnLine Del 778 · Who else cites this
Nopany Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF)Explained¶48
Nopany Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) 2 SCC 728 · Who else cites this
Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni AmmalExplained¶52
Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
RAM PAL SHARMA
GOPI NATH PVT LTD
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
