Judgment without discussing the oral evidence or the evidence by way of affidavit is extremely cryptic: High Court of Delhi

7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th January 2022 RAM KISHAN C.R.P. 51 2020 & CM APPL. 10690 2020 Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan Mr. Paritosh Dhawan Mr. Jatin Bhatia and Mr. Brinda Ajmani Advocates. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Goel Advocate. Respondents SATYA VIR SINGHTHR LRS & ANR. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh J.This hearing has been done through video conferencing. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 7th February 2020 passed by the Ld. SCJ RC Karkardooma Courts Delhi hereinafter “Trial Court”) in RC ARC No.345 2016 titled Sh. Ram Kishan v. Sh. Satyavir Singh & Anr. By the impugned judgment the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent has been dismissed by the Trial Court. The Petitioner Shri Ram Kishan and Respondent No.2 Mr. Brij Mohan are brothers and sons of Late Shri Maithali Ram and Late Smt. Devki Rani. The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.1 Late Shri Satyavir Singh is the tenant in the half portion admeasuring 37 1 2 sq. yards of the property identified as Property No. B 5 Aruna Park Shakarpur Delhi which is a residential property. Initially vide order dated 23rd March 2012 the Trial Court granted leave to C.R.P. 51 2020 Court. defend to the tenant. Thereafter the matter proceeded before the Trial 4. Detailed evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. Vide the final judgment dated 7th February 2020 the Trial Court has dismissed the petition on two primary grounds. First the suit property has been identified by the Petitioner to be located in Shakarpur whereas Shakarpur and Mandawali Fazalpur are two different localities. Hence the Petitioner has failed to prove the ownership of the suit property. Secondly the Trial Court has held that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. The entire discussion on the evidence led before the Trial Court is in the following paragraphs of the impugned judgment dated 7th February 2020. “6. The documents of title of the predecessors in interest of the petitioner are Ex.PW 2 C Aruna Park Shakarpur Delhi 92. 6.2 Shakarpur and Mandawali Fazalpur are two different localities. Thus the petitioner fails to prove that the documents produced by him pertain to the premises. 7. There is no evidence on record to prove the landlord tenant relationship viz. rent agreement C.R.P. 51 2020 rent receipts any record of payment of rent by the respondent to the petitioner such as statement of bank account of the petitioner etc. Thus the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not proved to the satisfaction of the court. 7.1 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the house tax in respect of the premises was paid for the petitioner. Payment of house tax by any person is no evidence of his ownership of the property in respect of which such tax is paid. 7.2 The witness PW 3 who is Section Officer with the MCD and who produced the house tax record deposed that the ledger folio no.65 291 was in respect of property B 5 Shakarpur Delhi and is in name of Mathali Ram. Whereas the document Ex.PW 1 A which is produced by the said witness purporting to be photocopy of pertinent ledger folio records the name of the assesse to be Madalli Ram. The original ledger was not produced by the said witness nor the documents on the basis on which the name of the assesse or and his relation with the property assessed was determined for the purposes of imposing tax liability of Madalli Ram was produced. The said witness fails and the document produced are of no probative value.” 5. Mr. Relan ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the identity of the property was never in question in these proceedings. Reliance is placed upon a reply dated 28th May 2011 given by the Respondent No.1 to the legal notice dated 17th May 2011 issued by the Petitioner wherein the Respondent No.1 clearly claims ownership in the property located in Shakarpur Shahdara Delhi. According to Mr. Relan the Respondent No.1 C.R.P. 51 2020 never challenged the identity of the property in the said reply. Thus the Court could not have held that these are two separate properties and that the ownership thereof has not been proved by the Petitioner. He further submits that the Trial Court has clearly gone beyond the mandate of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act itself. On the other hand Mr. Goel ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the documents which have been placed on record including the General Power of Attorneydescribes the seller Smt. Maya Devi from whom the Petitioner’s parents purchased the suit property as a resident of B 7 Aruna Park Shakarpur Delhi. However he submits that the sale is of the property in Mandawali Fazalpur Delhi. It is submitted that even the sale deed shows that the property which is being sold is at Mandawali Fazalpur and not Shakarpur. He further submits that Mandawali is 5 km away from Shakarpur. 7. This Court has perused the records. Firstly in the opinion of this Court the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is extremely cryptic. The same specifically records that several witnesses had deposed on behalf of the parties and a large number of documents were also exhibited. However there is no analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties at all. This Court is of the opinion that if there was a dispute as to the identity of the suit property the Trial Court ought to have discussed the evidence on record in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the two properties are the same or not. Secondly the Trial Court also arrives at the finding that there is no document to prove the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties. This finding as well has been recorded in merely five lines in C.R.P. 51 2020 parties. paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment extracted hereinabove without discussing the oral evidence or the evidence by way of affidavit filed by the 9. The Court has perused the GPA dated 10th December 1986 by which one Smt. Maya Devi had sold the property to the Petitioner’s parents. The same described Smt. Maya Devi as a resident of ‘B 7 Aruna Park Shakar Pur Delhi 110092’. In the recital identifying the property which has been sold it is clearly stated that the property is a residential house bearing ‘House no.7 measuring 75 Sq. Yards 22.5 feet x 30 feet out of Khasra No.477 situated at abadi of Aruna Park Block No. B in the village of Mandawali Fazalpur Village Shahdara Delhi’. 10. The property mentioned above can be easily described as B 7 Aruna Park Shakarpur. It cannot therefore be conclusively stated that the identity of these two properties i.e. the suit property and the property sold as per the sale deed are different. One has to bear in mind the fact that prior to urbanization of colonies in Delhi no proper plot numbers were allotted. Khasra numbers and area thereof were also quite blurred which is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken owing the various litigations that come before courts relating to Khasra numbers and identities of properties. 11. In the above context it is also relevant to point out that in the reply dated 28th May 2011 to the legal notice issued by the Petitioner the Respondent No.1 states and identifies the property very clearly as under: “That our client does not know a person namely Ram Kishan S o Late Sh. Mathali Ram R o 4879 Laddo Ghati Paharganj Delhi and it is also pertinent to mention here that the property No.B 5 Aruna Park Shakarpur Shahdara Delhi had been purchased by the wife of our client on 20.06.1988 from Sh. Manni Ram S o Sh. Ganna C.R.P. 51 2020 Nand Pant and since then our client has been residing at the above captioned property being the husband of the owner of the property namely Smt. Pushpa Devi W o Sh. Satya Vir and during this entire period no one raised any objection on the possession of our client and no such issue was ever arise as your client is trying to create problems in the peaceful and happy life of our client by sending this notice which is totally based on false frivolous and bogus facts which have no feet and have no value in the eyes of law before any court or any authority and the act of your client makes him liable for the damages. Parawise reply: 1. That the contents of para No.1 of your notice are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the parents of your client Late Sh. Maithali Ram and his wife Late Smt. Devki Rani were property built on a plot measuring 75 sq. yds. Bearing No.7 out of Khasra No.477 at abadi Aruna Park Block B Village Mandawali Fazalpur Illaqa Shahdara Delhi which is known as B 5 Aruna Park Shakarpur Shahdara Delhi which they purchased vide title deeds dated 10.12.1986. It is submitted that the wife of our client namely Pushpa Devi purchased the property i.e. House No.B 5 Aruna Park Shakarpur Delhi on 20.06.1988 from Sh. Manni Ram S o Sh. Ganna Nand Pant and since then our client has been residing at the above captioned property. However it is submitted that the property No.B 5 Aruna Park Shakarpur Delhi previously known as Plot No.7 and the same was part of the Khasra No.477 in the abadi of Aruna Park Block B Village Mandawali Fazalpur Illaqa Shahdara Delhi. ” the owners landlords of C.R.P. 51 2020 12. The Trial Court would thus have to peruse the basis on which title has been claimed by the Petitioner as also on the basis of which the title has been claimed by the Respondent who is alleged to have purchased the property in 1988 from one Shri Manni Ram. The said GPA dated 20th June 1988 executed by Sh. Manni Ram in favour of Smt. Pushpa Devi refers to a sale deed dated 23rd September 1969 executed by Shri Nanak Singh S o Jhanda Ram. The same sale deed dated 23rd September 1969 is also relied upon by the Petitioner to trace back his title to Sh. Manni Ram. Thus the identity of the property does not appear to have been in issue in the eviction petition. These documents ought to be examined in detail by the Trial Court in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the Respondent No.1 has any right to retain the said property as also whether there is in fact any dispute as to the identity of the property at all. If there is no such dispute relating to the identity of the suit property the Trial Court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. 13. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court. The Trial Court shall now hear the final arguments once again on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record and decide the matter within six months. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 2nd February 2022. 14. The present petition is allowed in the above terms. All pending applications are disposed of. JANUARY 12 2022 dk ad PRATHIBA M. SINGH C.R.P. 51 2020 

Summary: The Trial Court ought to discuss the evidence on record in order to arrive at the conclusion as. Judgment passed by the Trial Court would extremely cryptic if there is no analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties at all. These were stated by High Court of Delhi, consisting Justice Prathiba M. Singh in the case of Ram Kishan vs. Satya Vir Singh [C.R.P. 51/2020] on 12.01.2022. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are brothers and sons of Late Shri Maithali Ram and Late Smt. Devki Rani. The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.1 – Late Shri Satyavir Singh was the tenant in the half portion of the property (hereinafter “suit property”), which is a residential property. Initially, vide order dated 23rd March, 2012, the Trial Court granted leave to defend to the tenant. Thereafter, the matter proceeded before the Trial Court. A detailed evidence was led on behalf of both the parties. Vide the final judgment, the Trial Court dismissed the petition on two primary grounds. First, the suit property identified by the Petitioner was located in Shakarpur, whereas Shakarpur and Mandawali Fazalpur are two different localities. Hence, the Petitioner has failed to prove the ownership of the suit property. Secondly, the Trial Court held that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the identity of the property was never in question in these proceedings. Reliance was placed upon a reply given by the Respondent No.1 to the legal notice issued by the Petitioner, wherein the Respondent No.1 clearly claimed ownership in the property located in Shakarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. It was further submitted that Respondent No.1 never challenged the identity of the property in the said reply. Thus, the Court could not have held that these are two separate properties, and that the ownership thereof has not been proved by the Petitioner. He further submits that the Trial Court has clearly gone beyond the mandate of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act itself. The Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the documents which have been placed on record including the General Power of Attorney (GPA), describes the seller Smt. Maya Devi from whom the Petitioner’s parents purchased the suit property as a resident of property. However, he submitted that the sale is of the property in Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi. It was therefore, submitted that even the sale deed shows that the property which was being sold is at Mandawali Fazalpur, and not Shakarpur.