In the ongoing legal battle between Chartered 281/2004 and RFA 409/2010, a landlord-tenant dispute is at the forefront of discussion. The court is set to make a crucial decision on the status of the defendant in the suit property, with implications for both parties involved. Follow this case closely to understand the intricate legal proceedings unfolding in the Delhi High Court.
Facts
- The Chartered 281/2004 case is pending consideration in the court
- Also pending in RFA 409/2010
Arguments
- The plaintiff’s title cannot be disputed by the defendant based on unassailable material on record and judgment in CS 281/2004.
- Existence of documents showing defendant’s possession dating back to 1977.
- Defendant can only be directed to pay rent at Rs. 350/- per month due to landlord-tenant relationship.
- Property situated in a prime location with high value.
- Defendants considered unauthorized and liable to pay user and occupation charges.
- Relationship of landlord and tenant admitted by late Sardar Mahal Singh in written statement.
- Surjeet Singh, nephew of late Sardar Mahal Singh, used to collect rent.
- Plaintiff relies on report of certified Chartered Engineer & Approved Valuer.
- Dispute regarding the validity of judgment in CS 281/2004 as it is pending adjudication.
- Plaintiff’s father’s admission of defendant as tenant in legal notice mentioned.
- Defendant willing to deposit rent at Rs. 350/- per month.
- Accusations of false and frivolous averments by plaintiff contrary to previous suit.
- Certified valuer’s report challenged as self-serving document.
- Judicial admission of plaintiff’s father binding on plaintiff.
- Legal precedent Naginadas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Icharam cited.
- The plaintiff has filed an application under section 15A for eviction of an unauthorized occupant/lessee or for the recovery of rent and future mean profit.
- The defendant is required to deposit the amount directed by the court on account of arrears and continue to pay the rent claimed in the suit until the decision of the suit.
- Learned counsel argues that the plaintiff’s claim for Rs. 54,574/- per month as use and occupational charges is unjustifiable.
- The valuation report obtained by the plaintiff is criticized for going beyond mere valuation and commenting on the landlord-tenant relationship, which is the subject of pending adjudication before the court.
Analysis
- The learned Additional District Judge in CS 281/2004 has held the defendant to be the illegal occupant.
- The status of the defendant in the suit property is pending for consideration before the court in RFA 409/2010.
Decision
- The evidence in the present case is yet to be recorded.
- The first appeal which is a matter of right is pending before this court.
- The present applications are disposed of with a direction to await the decision in RFA No.409/2010.
- The documents claiming tenancy are pending scrutiny before the first Appellate Court.
- The plaintiff is allowed to take appropriate legal steps in RFA No. 409/2010.
Case Title: SHRI HARDEEP SINGH SAFRI Vs. SHRI MANAV BAJAJ (2024:DHC:3777)
Case Number: I.A.-17325/2023
