8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
1/30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.F.A. NO. OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT. ASHA ARORA & ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SHRI D.S. SODHI ...RESPONDENT
INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. Court Fee.
2. Urgent Application.
3. Notice of Motion.
4. Memo of Parties.
5. Opening Sheet.
6. Memo of Appeal along with Affidavit.
7. Annexure A-1Certified copy of the impugned judgmentand decree dated 08.11.2013.
8. Annexure A-2Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated05.06.1996.
9. Annexure A-3Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated05.06.1996.
10. Annexure-A-4Certified copy of the Perpetual Lease Deeddated 14.11.1968.
11. Annexure A-5Certified copy of the Conveyance Deeddated 07.10.1994.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
2/30
12. Annexure-A-6Certified copy of the Lease Deed dated01.10.1980.
13. Annexure A-7Certified copy of the legal notice dated22.01.2002.
14. Annexure A-8Certified copy of the reply dated 06.02.2002
to the legal notice.
15. Annexure A-9Certified copy of the rejoinder dated08.04.2002 to the reply notice dated06.02.2002.
16. Annexure A-10Certified copy of the Agreement to Selldated 24.01.1989.
17. Annexure A-11Certified copy of the plaint in the suitNo.301/11/02.
18. Annexure A-12Certified copy of the written statement filedby Smt. Vathsala Chandroo.
19. Annexure A-13Certified copy of the replication filed by therespondent to the written statement of Mrs.Vathsala Chandroo in suit no.301/11/02.
20. Annexure A-14Certified copy of the written statement of the
Appellants.
21. Annexure A-15True copy of the plaint of the Appellants.
22. Annexure A-16True copy of the written statement.
23. Annexure A-17Truecopy of the order dated 27.10.2006.
24. Annexure A-18Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of PW-1 ShriD.S. Sodhi.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
3/30
25. Annexure A-19Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of PW-2 ShriS.K. Govil.
26. Annexure A-20Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination)of PW-3 Shri RajKumar Garg.
27. Annexure A-21Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of PW-4 ShriDevak Ram.
28. Annexure A-22Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of D1DW Smt.Vathsala Chandroo.
29. Annexure A-23Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of D1W2 HeadConstable Kishan Chand.
30. Annexure A-24Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of D1W3 ShriV.C. Mishra.
31. Annexure A-25Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of D2W1 ShriHomender Arora.
32. Annexure A-26Certified copy of the judgment and decreedated 27.07.2013 passed by the Ld. TrialCourt in suit no.295/11/02.
33. Annexure A-27True copy of the order dated 10.10.2013passed in RFA No.482/2013.
34. Annexure A-28Certified copy of the Agreement dated14.02.1984.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
4/30
35. Annexure A-29Certified copy of the Special Power of
Attorney dated 14.02.1984.
36. Annexure A-30Certified copy of the Agreement dated08.11.1968.
37. Annexure A-31Certified copy of the Site Plan.
38. Annexure A-32Certified copy of the GPA in favour of Sh.Yog Raj Arora.
39. Annexure A-33Certified copy of the GPA in favour of Sh.Homender Arora.
40. Annexure A-34
Certified copy of the General Power ofAttorney in favour of Sh. Rajiv Manchanda.
41. Annexure A-35Certified copy of the SPA in favour of Sh.Dinesh K. Maniam.
42. Vakalatnama.
APPELLANTS
NEW DELHI THROUGHDATED:
(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTSA-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014MOB: 9810236228
mailto:[email protected]8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
5/30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.F.A. NO. OF 2013
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. SMT. ASHA ARORAW/O SHRI YOG RAJ ARORAR/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,
NEW DELHI
2. SHRI HOMENDER ARORAS/O LATE SHRI ATMA PRAKASHR/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,NEW DELHI APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SHRI D.S. SODHIS/O SHRI K.S. SODHIR/O B-4/6, VASANT VIHAR,NEW DELHI-110067 ...RESPONDENT
APPELLANTSNEW DELHI THROUGHDATED:
(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS
A-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSIONNEW DELHI-110014
MOB: [email protected]
(APPEAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS UNDERSECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OFCIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMNET &DECREE DATED 08.11.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SHRIRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-5,CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN C.S.NO.295/2011/2006 WHEREBY SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS FORRECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY ANDMESNE PROFITS HAS BEEN DISMISSED)
mailto:[email protected]8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
6/30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.F.A. NO. OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. SMT. ASHA ARORAW/O SHRI YOG RAJ ARORA
R/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,NEW DELHI
2. SHRI HOMENDER ARORAS/O LATE SHRI ATMA PRAKASHR/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,NEW DELHI APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SHRI D.S. SODHIS/O SHRI K.S. SODHIR/O B-4/6, VASANT VIHAR,NEW DELHI-110067 ...RESPONDENT
APPEAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMNET & DECREE DATED 08.11.2013
PASSED BY THE COURT OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-5, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN C.S.NO.295/2011/2006 WHEREBY SUIT OF THE
APPELLANTS FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF
IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY AND MESNE PROFITS HAS
BEEN DISMISSED
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
7/30
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
8/30
BRIEF FACTS
1. That the appellants herein are owner of the property and
premises bearing Municipal No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi, having purchased the same from the erstwhile
owner Smt. Vathsala Chandroo by means of two Sale
Deeds dated 05.06.1996 (Ex. D2W1/3 and Ex. D2W1/4)
duly executed and registered in favour of appellant no.1
and 2 respectively. Certified copies of the said Sale
Deeds dated 05.06.1996 are annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-2 andA-3 respectively.
2. That admittedly Smt. Vathsala Chandroo was the owner
of the said property by means of a Perpetual Lease Deed
dated 14.11.1968 (Ex. PW1/10) and subsequent
Conveyance Deed dated 07.10.1994 (Ex. D1W1/4). A
certified copy of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated
14.11.1968 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-A-4, whereas a certified copy of the
Conveyance Deed dated 07.10.1994 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure A-5.
3. That the respondent herein was a tenant in the Ground
Floor portion of the aforesaid property on the date of the
purchase of the suit property by the appellants. He was
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
9/30
also in unauthorized use and occupation of the First
Floor portion of the said property. However, the
respondent herein in the present proceedings has
claimed himself to be a tenant in respect of the entire
property comprising of Ground Floor, First Floor and a
room /mumty on the terrace i.e. Second Floor. The
respondent has claimed his tenancy in respect of the
aforesaid premises under a written lease deed dated
01.10.1980 (Ex. PW1/2). A certified copy of the said
Lease Deed is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-A-6.
The Ld. Trial Court by means of the impugned
judgment and decree has held that the respondent herein
was not only a tenant in respect of the Ground Floor
portion but was also the tenant in respect of the
remaining portion of the building i.e. the First Floor.
4. That the factum of purchase of the suit property by the
appellants herein was communicated to the respondent
herein in the year 1996 itself and the copies of all the
relevant documents were supplied to the respondent.
5. That the appellants herein also got issued and served
upon the respondent a legal notice dated 22.01.2002
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
10/30
(wrongly typed as 22.01.2001) through their counsel Shri
Amit S. Chadha, Advocate. By means of the said notice
the rent of the premises was sought to be increased from
Rs.1200/- per month to Rs.1320/- per month w.e.f.
01.03.2002 in terms of Section 6A and 8 of the Delhi
Rent Control Act. The said notice was duly proved on
record asEx.PW1/15. A certified copy of the said notice is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-7.
6. That the respondent on being served with the legal notice
dated 22.01.2002(Ex.PW1/15)
got issued and served
upon the appellants a reply dated 06.02.2002 from his
counsel Shri Sushil Kumar Bhalla, Advocate. The said
reply has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/16. A
certified copy of the said reply dated 06.02.2002 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-8.
In the said reply it was claimed by the Respondent
herein for the first time that he has entered into an
Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989 with the erstwhile
owner Smt. Vathsala Chandroo and that the respondent
herein is not a tenant in the premises nor he is liable to
make the payment of rents rather he claimed himself to
be transferee in possession. It was specifically stated in
the said reply that:-
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
11/30
(vii) That in reply to Para No.7 it is vehementlydenied that my client is tenant and he has anyliability as such.
It is the submissions of the appellants that in the said
reply the respondent herein has set-up a title of the suit
property in himself thereby renouncing the character of
tenant and as such the respondent renounced his
tenancy. Tenancy of the Respondent stood forfeited in
terms of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act.
7. That the appellants got issued and served upon the
respondent a rejoinder dated 08.04.2002 through their
counsel Shri Amit S. Chadha, Advocate which rejoinder
was duly proved on record asEx.PW1/17. A certified copy
of the said rejoinder is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure A-9.
8. That at this stage the respondent herein filed a suit for
Specific Performance against Smt. Vathsala Chandroo in
respect of the alleged Agreement to Sell dated
24.01.1989. In the said suit the respondent also
impleaded the present appellants and further sought a
relief of Declaration to the effect that the Sale Deed
dated 05.06.1996 in favour of the appellants herein be
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
12/30
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
13/30
replication are reproduced herein below for the kind
perusal of this Honble Court:-
..the plaintiff was tenant in respect of entireaccommodation on the Ground Floor as well as FirstFloor vide Lease Deed dated 01.10.1980. (Para 5 (iii) ofreply to Preliminary Objections)
..the entire suit property was in the tenancy andpossession of the plaintiff and there was no occasion forthe defendant no.1 to enter the same without the
permission of plaintiff(Para 5 (vi) of reply to PreliminaryObjections).
..since the entire property was in possession andtenancy of the plaintiff, therefore, question ofbreaking (Para 5 (viii) of the reply to PreliminaryObjections)
in fact, the entire property in question wasearlierunder the tenancy of plaintiff .(Para 13 of the reply toPreliminary Objections)
A certified copy of the replication filed by the
respondent herein to the written statement of Mrs.
Vathsala Chandroo in suit no.301/11/02 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure A-13.
11. That the appellants herein also filed their detailed
written statement in the said suit (CS No. 301/11/2002),
thereby bringing all true and correct facts on record. A
certified copy of the said written statement of the
Appellants is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure A-14.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
14/30
12. That the appellants herein filed the present suit for
Possession and Mesne Profits against the respondent
herein on 01.06.2006 on the ground that the respondent
/tenant by setting up a title in himself has renounced his
tenancy and as such the tenancy of the Respondent
stood forfeited in terms of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer
of Property Act. The said suit was registered as suit
no.295/11/06. A true copy of the plaint of the Appellants
in the said suit is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure A-15.
13. That the respondent herein on being served with the
summons of the present suit (CS No. 295/2011/2006)filed
his written statement, thereby taking all frivolous
objections. The respondent in the said written statement
took a u-turn from his earlier stand and claimed as if he
continues to be a tenant as well as a transferee under
the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989. A true
copy of the said written statement is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure A-16.
14. That the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to settle issues
on 27.10.2006 in the present suit (CS No. 295/2011/2006).
The three additional issues were also framed on
12.09.2013. All the issues as framed by the Ld. Trial
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
15/30
Court in the present proceedings are reproduced as
under:-
Issue No.1: Whether the suit is not maintainable becauseof the provisions of order 2 rule 2 CPC asalleged in the preliminary objection no.2 in theWS? OPD
Issue No.2: Whether the suit is not valued properly asalleged in the preliminary objection no.6 of theWS? OPD
Issue No.3: Whether the suit is not maintainable becausethe tenancy of the defendant has not beenterminated as per the provisions of Transfer ofProperty Act, if not so, its effect? OPD
Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief ofpossession as claimed for? OPP
Issue No.5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesneprofits, if so, at what rate and for what period?OPP
Issue No.6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief ofpermanent injunction as claimed for? OPP
Issue No.7: Whether the defendant is entitled to theprotection under section 53A Transfer of
Property Act? OPD
Issue NO.8: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
Issue No.9: Whether the suit is liable to be stayed underSection 10 CPC? OPD
Issue No.10: Relief
15. That in suit No.301/11/02 filed by the respondent
herein for Specific Performance of the alleged
Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989 the Ld. Trial Court
was pleased to frame the following issues:-
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
16/30
1. Whether the suit is barred by time under the limitationAct? OPD
2. Whether the suit is not valued for the purpose of courtfee and jurisdiction Act? OPD
3. Whether the agreement to sell dated 24.1.89 in favourof the plaint is a forged and fabricated document inview of preliminary objection no.6 of the WS? OPD
4. Whether the agreement to sell dated 24.1.89 is void
and cannot be enforced in view of the preliminaryobjection no.11 of the WS? OPD
5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of causeof action? OPD
7. Whether the registered Sale Deeds dated 5.6.96 infavour of defendant no.2 and 3 are illegal and invalid.
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deedexecuted , signed and duly registered in his favour bythe defendant no.1 allowing the plaintiff to pay thebalance amount of Rs.9 Lacs in favour of defendantno.1 in respect of property bearing No.B-4/6, VasantVihar, New Delhi? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration thatthe sale deed dated 05.06.1996 executed by thedefendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and 3 is
illegal, invalid and not binding against the plaintiff inrespect of property bearing No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar,New Delhi? OPP
10. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?OPP
11. Relief.
16. That both the aforesaid suits were consolidated for the
purposes of recording evidence vide order dated
27.10.2006 passed in suit no. 295/2011/2006. A copy of
the said order dated 27.10.2006 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-17.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
17/30
17. That in the common evidence recorded before the Ld.
Trial Court, the following witnesses were examined by
the parties:-
PW-1 Shri D.S. Sodhi (respondent herein)
PW-2 Shri S.K. Govil (witness of the respondent herein)
PW-3 Shri Raj Kumar Garg (witness of the respondentherein)
PW-4 Shri Devak Ram (witness of the respondent
herein)
D1W1: Smt. Vathsala Chandroo (the defendant no.1 insuit No.301/11/02)
D1W2: Head Constable Kishan Chand (witness ofdefendant no.1 in suit no.301/11/02)
D1W3: Shri V.C. Mishra (witness of defendant no.1 insuit no.301/11/02)
D2W1: Shri Homender Arora (appellant no.2 herein)
The evidence (examination in chief and cross
examination) of PW-1 Shri D.S. Sodhi is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure A-18.
The evidence (examination in chief and cross
examination)of PW-2 Shri S.K. Govil is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure A-19.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
18/30
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
19/30
18. That by means of the impugned judgment and decree
dated 08.11.2013 the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to
dismiss the suit for Possession filed by the appellants
inter-alia holding that the tenancy of the respondent has
not been validly terminated.
19. That the Ld. Trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 27.07.2013 was further pleased to dismiss the suit
for specific performance filed by the respondent herein. A
certified copy of the judgment and decree dated
27.07.2013 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in suit
no.295/11/02 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-A-26.
20. That the parties proved on record several documents
which are listed as under:-
A. Documents proved by Respondent Mr. D.S. Sodhi.
S.No.
ExhibitNo.
Description ofdocument
Annexureof presentAppeal
1. PW1/1 Agreement dated14.02.1984.
A-28
2. PW1/2 Lease Deed dated01.10.1980.
A-6
3. PW1/3 Special Power ofAttorney dated14.02.1984.
A-29
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
20/30
4. PW1/4 Letter of 1983. Not filed.
5. PW1/5 Letter dated04.07.1983.
Not filed.
6. PW1/6 Letter dated30.05.1983.
Not filed.
7. PW1/7 Letter dated24.07.1983.
Not filed.
8. PW1/8 Letter dated20.03.1986.
Not filed.
9. PW1/9 Pronote dated01.03.1973.
Not filed.
10. PW1/10 Perpetual Sub-LeaseDeed.
A-4
11. PW1/11 Agreement dated08.11.1968. A-30
12. PW1/11A Agreement to Selldated 24.01.1989.
A-10
13. PW1/12 Telephone Bill. Not filed.
14. PW1/13 First Running Bill ofSh. Raj Kumar Garg.
Not filed.
15. PW1/14 Bill of Sh. KanhaiyaLal Yadav.
Not filed.
16. PW1/15 Notice dated22.01.2002 (wronglytyped as 22.01.2001).
A-7
17. PW1/16 Reply dated06.02.2002.
A-8
18. PW1/17 Rejoinder dated08.04.2002.
A-9
19. PW1/18to 22
Postal Records. Not filed.
20. PW4/1 Report of Sh. DevakRam.
Not filed.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
21/30
B. Documents proved by Appellants/purchasers of
the property/ Plaintiff in the suit.
S.No.
ExhibitNo.
Description ofdocument
Annexureof presentAppeal
1. D2W1/3 Sale Deed dated05.06.1996 in favourof Smt. Asha Arora.
A-2
2. D2W1/4 Sale Deed dated05.06.1996 in favourof Sh. Homender
Arora.
A-3
3. DW1/W3/1 Report of Sh. V.C.
Mishra, HandwritingExpert.
Not filed.
C. Documents proved by Mrs. Vathsala Chandroo,
the original owner.
S.No.
Exhibit No. Description ofdocument
Annexureof present
Appeal
1. D1W1/1 Site Plan. A-31
2. D1W1/2=D2W1/1 GPA in favourof Sh. Yog Raj
Arora.
A-32
3. D1W1/3 GPA in favourof Sh.
HomenderArora
A-33
4. D1W1/4=D2W1/2 ConveyanceDeed dated07.10.1994.
A-5
5. D1W1/5 Complaint dated27.08.1994 tothe police.
Not filed.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
22/30
6. D1W1/6=DW1/9 Public notice inthe newspaperThe PioneerEdition dated04.10.1994.
Not filed.
7. D1W1/7 General Powerof Attorney infavour of Sh.Rajiv
Manchanda.
A-34
8. DW1/4 Complaint dated24.04.1989 to
ACP.
Not filed.
9. DW1/5 Complaint toSHO.
Not filed.
10. DW1/6 Complaint to
SHO, VasantVihar.
Not filed.
11. DW1/7 SPA in favour ofSh. Dinesh K.Maniam.
A-35
III. That the appellants challenge the legality and validity of the
impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013 inter-alia
on the following grounds:-
GROUNDS
A. Because the impugned judgment and decree dated
08.11.2013 as passed by the Ld. Trial Court is totally bad
and illegal on the facts of the case and in view of the law
involved and as such the same is liable to be set-aside
by this Honble Court in exercise of its Appellate
Jurisdiction.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
23/30
B. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in
holding that the appellants have not validly determined
and terminated the tenancy of the respondent herein.
Though the Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated that
filing of the suit in itself is a notice under Section 106 of
Transfer of Property Act and no prior notice is required.
However, still the Ld. Trial Court has held that the
tenancy of the respondent has not been validly
terminated merely on the ground that in the plaint of the
appellants it was stated that the respondent herein was a
tenant in respect of the Ground Floor only and was
unauthorized occupant in respect of the First Floor. Once
it has been held by the Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned
judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013 that the
respondent was not only a tenant in respect of the
Ground Floor of the suit property but also in respect of
the upper Floor, the Ld. Trial Court ought to have held
that the tenancy of the entire premises stood determined
and terminated by presenting the plaint before the Ld.
Trial Court by the appellants herein (particularly when in
the plaint the possession of the entire property has been
sought for and not merely for the Ground Floor).
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
24/30
C. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in
holding that because the appellant alleged in the plaint
that the respondent was a tenant in respect of the
Ground Floor portion only so the tenancy of the
respondent can be terminated by filing of a plaint only in
respect of the Ground Floor and not in respect of the
First Floor which is held to be under the tenancy of the
respondent.
D. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in
not appreciating that the respondent had set-up his title
not in respect of the ground floor of the property but in
respect of the entire property. Once it has been held that
the respondent herein was a tenant in respect of the
entire property and in view of the fact that the respondent
claimed his ownership in respect of the entire property,
his tenancy stood determined and forfeited in view of
Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act in respect
of his entire tenancy. To held that tenancy only in respect
of Ground Floor stood terminated and not in respect of
the upper floor, is totally erroneous in law.
E. Because the Ld. Trial Court ought to have considered
that the notice of termination of tenancy is to be
construed liberally and not strictly. In the plaint of the
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
25/30
present proceedings (which has been treated to be a notice
of termination), the Appellants have sought possession
not only for ground floor but also for the first floor. A clear
demand of vacant physical possession of the entire
property has been made in the said plaint which
demonstrates the intention of the Plaintiffs/ Appellants
herein and which intention stood communicated to the
Respondent. All the requirements of law stood complied
with when the Respondent became aware of this
intention of the Appellants that the possession of the
entire property in question has been sought for.
F. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in
making minute scrutiny of the plaint and to hold that the
tenancy of the Respondent in respect of the ground floor
only stood determined and terminated. The Ld. Trial
Court ought to have held that the tenancy in respect of
the entire property stood determined and terminated.
G. Because there are other numerous grounds considering
which the impugned judgment and decree dated
08.11.2013 is liable to be set-aside. The appellants
reserve their right to urge all such grounds at the time of
oral hearing before this Honble Court.
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
26/30
IV. That the appellants have not filed any other appeal against
the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013
before this Honble Court or before any other Court.
V. That the annexures annexed to the present appeal are the
true copies of their respective originals.
VI. That the present appeal is being filed within the period of
limitation and there is no delay on the part of the appellants
in filing the present appeal.
VII. That there is connected appeal in between the parties being
RFA No.482/2013 titled as Shri D.S. Sodhi Vs. Vathsala
Chandroo & Ors, which is pending disposal before this
Honble Court and is fixed for hearing on 10.12.2013. The
said appeal is arising from the impugned judgment and
decree dated 27.07.2013 which was passed by the Ld. Trial
Court in a suit for Specific Performance (being suit
no.301/2011) filed by the respondent herein against the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants namely Smt.
Vathsala Chandroo and the appellants herein. By means of
the said judgment and decree dated 27.07.2013 the Ld.
Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit for Specific
Performance of the respondent herein. A true copy of the
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
27/30
order dated 10.10.2013 passed in RFA No.482/2013 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-27.
PRAYER
In the aforesaid premises, it is most humbly prayed that this
Honble Court may kindly be pleased to:-
(a) set aside the impugned Judgment and decree dated
08.11.2013 passed by the Ld. Court of Shri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, Additional District Judge-5, Central District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.S. No.295/2011;
(b) decree the suit for Possession filed by the appellants herein
against the respondent herein thereby passing a decree of
Possession in respect of the entire property and premises
bearing Municipal No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-
110057;
(c) decree the suit of the appellants for the relief of Mesne
Profits and Permanent Injunction in terms of prayer (b) and
(c) in the plaint of the appellants herein.
(d) award costs of the proceedings of the present appeal as
well as of the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court in
favour of the appellants; and
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
28/30
(e) pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
It is prayed accordingly.
APPELLANTS
NEW DELHI THROUGHDATED:
(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS
A-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSIONNEW DELHI-110014
MOB: [email protected]
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of November, 2013 that the
facts stated in our aforesaid appeal are true and correct to our
knowledge and the legal submissions made in the aforesaid
appeal are true and correct on the basis of the legal information
received and believed to be correct. Last para is prayer to this
Honble Court.
APPELLANTS
mailto:[email protected]8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
29/30
8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf
30/30