Lakshman Singh vs Ahmad Shaid Qureshi on 20 May, 2025

0
5

Delhi District Court

Lakshman Singh vs Ahmad Shaid Qureshi on 20 May, 2025

CS DJ No.1607/17


                    IN THE COURT OF MR. JITEN MEHRA,
                  CENTRAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT JUDGE -10:
                        TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.



CNR NO.:- DLCT01-006531-2017
SUIT NO.:- 1607/2017



IN THE MATTER OF :-

Sh. Lakshman Singh
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o 2062/2, Basti Peepal Wali,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006

                                                   ......... Plaintiff

                                         VERSUS


Ahmad Shaid Qureshi
R/o Phase F-1, Plot No. 170,
Shahzada Bagh, Inder Lok,
Delhi.

ALSO AT: 2075/76(2101),
Basti Peepal Wali, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006.
                                                   ....... Defendant


       SUIT FOR EJECTMENT/POSSESSION AND RECOVERY OF
                  OCCUPIER AND USER CHARGES



Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                    Page 1 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17



        Date of Institution of the Suit                       : 29.04.2017
        Date on which Judgment was reserved                   : 17.08.2024
        Date of Judgment                                      : 20.05.2025



                                   ::- J U D G M E N T -::


      1.         The plaintiff has filed the suit for ejectment/possession and

      recovery of occupier and user charges with respect to property bearing

      no.2075-76,         Basti      Peepal   Wali,   Sadar    Bazar,   Delhi-110006

      (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property').



      PLAINTIFF'S VERSION AS PER THE PLAINT:

      2.         In the plaint, it is averred that plaintiff is the 'owner/co-owner'

      of the suit property, which has been bequeathed to the plaintiff by his

      mother Late Smt. Ganga Devi vide Will dated 29.07.1966. A letter of

      administration has also been granted with respect to the said will dated

      29.07.1966 vide order dated 29.09.1980 in Probate Case No.

      167/1977.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                       Page 2 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      3.         In the year 1981, plaintiff had rented/licensed two rooms of

      the suit property for the baithak purpose for usage as rest rooms in the

      ground floor to the defendant. On 10.07.2014, when plaintiff went to

      the said property to recover rent/license fee, he came to know that the

      defendant has misused and converted the said residential property into

      a commercial property. It is further averred that the defendant also

      removed the two walls that were parting the two different properties

      and also closed the main door of the said property permanently by

      constructing a concrete wall from inside and combined the said

      property with another property bearing no.2101, ground floor, Sadar

      Nala Road, Delhi-06 and created two different openings, without

      obtaining his permission. As per the plaintiff a civil suit pertaining to

      the illegal construction was also pending adjudication before the Court

      of Sh. V. K. Gautam, Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari. The plaintiff

      also relied upon the the cross-examination of the defendant dated

      17.03.2016 recorded before the Court of Sh. V. K. Jha, Ld. Civil

      Judge, Tis Hazari.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 3 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      4.         The plaintiff has also let out the first floor of the property to

      one of his tenant for residential purpose, who is residing therein with

      his family members, but due to the removal of the said walls by the

      defendant, damage and cracks have been caused in the said property,

      which may even result in the property collapsing as the two walls

      were bearing the load of the first floor of the property. The plaintiff

      has brought the same to the notice of the defendant on numerous

      occasions, but all the pleas of the plaintiff have fallen on deaf ears.



      5.         The plaintiff has also filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent

      of Rs. 54,000/- against the defendant, bearing Suit No. 15/2015 titled

      as 'Lakshman Singh vs Ahmad Shahid Qureshi', however the same

      was dismissed by the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Jha, Ld. Civil Judge

      on 12.05.2016 holding that there was no relationship of landlord and

      tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant also

      claimed in the said suit that he was the owner of the property as he

      had paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as sale consideration, which he

      was unable to prove. The Ld. Court held that status of the defendant to




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                   Page 4 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      be that of a licensee only. The defendant never challenged the said

      order dated 12.05.2016 and hence the same has attained finality.



      6.           In the aforementioned Suit No. 15/2015, the defendant filed

      an application under Order 16 rule 1 (3) read with section 151 of the

      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as he wanted to prove his case

      that he was the owner of the suit property by producing two more

      witnesses, which was objected to by the plaintiff on the grounds that

      the defendant was trying to fill up the lacunae in his evidence and the

      same was also dismissed by the Court vide order dated 05.04.2016.



      7.         The plaintiff had revoked the license on 12.05.2016, i.e. the

      day of the judgment in C.S. No. 15/2015 was passed and sent a notice

      dated 10.09.2016 to the defendant thereby terminating and revoking

      the license to which the defendant sent reply dated 10.10.2016,

      wherein, he claimed himself to be owner of the property and refused

      to vacate the same. As per the plaintiff, the said question has already

      been decided between the parties in Suit no. 15/2015 that the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 5 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      defendant was merely a licencee and hence cannot be re-agitated by

      the defendant.



      8.         It is further averred that the defendant is putting to good use

      the knowledge of the fact that a property dispute was pending between

      the family members of the plaintiff. However, it is submitted that all

      their issues pertaining to the said property were finally decided by the

      Court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. ADJ, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

      vide order dated 22.07.2016 and clarified the status of the probate and

      Will dated 29.07.1996 and 29.09.1980.



      9.         It is further submitted that despite having been served a notice

      for revocation and termination of license, the defendant has been

      continuing to remain in illegal possession of the suit property and

      thus, the status of the defendant in the suit property from 24.05.2016

      would be that of an unauthorized occupant/trespasser and he is liable

      to pay user charges/damages of Rs.6,000/- per month and as per

      property valuation report dated 30.03.2017, the market rent of the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                 Page 6 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      property has been fixed at Rs.8,000/-. Hence the present suit seeking

      a decree of ejectment in favour of the plaintiff and mesne profits @

      Rs. 6,000/- per month from 12.05.2016 till March, 2017 and thereafter

      @ Rs. 8,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Further the plaintiff has

      prayed for damages @ Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental agony and

      litigation expenses and harassment.



      Defendant's version as per the Written Statement

      10.          The defendant raised the preliminary objections that the

      plaintiff had sold the shops which are in possession of the defendant

      for which the defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- being the

      sale consideration for both the shops in the year 1981. The sale

      documents were not executed by the plaintiff on the pretext that some

      dispute was going on in his family and he will execute the same after

      some time. Since then the defendant is in uninterrupted possession of

      the shops being owner of the same.



      11.        The defendant received a notice from Sh. Triloki Pandit,




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                           Page 7 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      Advocate on behalf of his clients, Sh. Sunder Lal and Smt. Maya Devi

      claiming themselves to be co-owners of the suit property, in which it

      was mentioned that a preliminary decree dated 07.08.1979 had been

      passed by the Court of Sh. V. K. Jain, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi

      and also claimed rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month in the said notice. The

      plaintiff has suppressed the said facts in his plaint.



      12.        As per the defendant, it has been revealed to him that the

      alleged probate granted in favour of the plaintiff was the result of

      concealment of facts, which has been revoked. The defendant asserted

      himself to be the owner of the suit property and reiterated that he had

      paid the sale consideration to the plaintiff, however the sale deed in

      his favour had not been executed by the plaintiff on the excuse that

      some family dispute was going on.



      13.        The defendant further objected that the plaint has not been

      verified as prescribed under Order VI rule 15 CPC and was liable to

      be dismissed.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                             Page 8 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17




      14.        In the reply on merits, the defendant denied that the plaintiff

      was either the owner or co-owner of the suit property and submitted

      that the plaintiff was himself not aware whether he was the owner or

      the co-owner of the same. The defendant denied that the suit property

      had been been bequeathed to the plaintiff by his mother Late Smt.

      Ganga Devi vide Will dated 29.07.1966.The defendant reiterated that

      he had received a legal notice issued on behalf of Sh. Sunder Lal and

      Smt. Maya Devi claiming themselves to be co-owners and stating that

      a preliminary decree dated 07.08.1979 had been passed by the Court

      of Sh. V.K. Jain, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. He further asserted that the

      alleged probate has also been revoked as the same had been obtained

      by fraud.



      15.          The defendant denied that the plaintiff had rented/licensed

      two rooms for the baithak purposes in the year 1981 and reiterated that

      the same had been sold to him by the plaintiff for a consideration of

      Rs. 3 lakhs.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                Page 9 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17




      16.        The defendant denied the entire version of the plaintiff as

      stated in the plaint or that he had been putting it to commercial use or

      removed any walls from the same or closed any entrance. He stated

      that he had purchased the adjoining property bearing no. 2101 and

      purchased the suit property from the plaintiff for the purpose of

      expanding his business and removed the wall between the same in the

      presence of the plaintiff. The defendant did not deny the fact of the

      plaintiff having filed a suit before the Court of Sh. V.K. Gautam,

      Senior Civil Judge, Delhi and stated the same to be a false case.



      17.        The defendant further denied for want of knowledge whether

      the occupants on the first floor of the suit property were tenants and

      submitted that the walls were removed by him in the year 1981 itself,

      at the time of purchasing the property from the plaintiff. He deposed

      that the building in question was more than 60 years old and made of

      mud and mortar and was not property maintained/repaired and hence,

      on account of the same cracks may have occurred. He denied that any




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 10 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      damage had been caused by him.



      18.        The defendant also did not deny that the plaintiff had filed a

      suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 54,000/- against the

      defendant, bearing Suit No. 15/2015 titled as 'Lakshman Singh vs

      Ahmad Shahid Qureshi' which was dismissed, however stated the

      same to be a false case. He did not specifically deny the averments

      with respect to the fact that as per the order dated 12.05.2016, it was

      held that there was no relationship of landlord or tenant between the

      plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant also did not deny the

      dismissal of his application under Order 16 rule 1 (3) CPC seeking to

      lead evidence vide order dated 05.04.2016.



      19.        The defendant denied that plaintiff had revoked his license on

      12.05.2016 and submitted that he was not a licencee of the plaintiff.

      He admitted to receiving the notice dated 10.09.2016 and stated that

      he replied to the same. The defendant further denied that he was not

      maintaining the property




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 11 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17




      20.        With respect to the judgment passed by the Court of

      Ms.Kamini Lau, the then Ld. ADJ, the defendant submitted that it is

      clear from that judgment that the litigation was pending since long and

      that in fact, this is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff had not

      executed the sale documents on the ground that the litigation among

      family members was pending.



      21.        The defendant sought for dismissal of the plaint with heavy

      cost.



      Replication by the plaintiff

      22.        In his replication, the plaintiff stated that the claim of the

      defendant as per his written statement was barred by the principle of

      res judicata under Explanation VIII of section 11 CPC. He further

      relied upon the maxims of nemo debet bis vexari, Interest Reipublicae

      Ut Sit Finis Litium and Res judicata pro veritate accipitur. It was

      submitted that the position of the defendant as a licencee had been




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 12 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      decided by the Court of Sh. V.K. Jha, Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Tis

      Hazari Courts in Civil Suit No. 15/2015 vide order dated 12.05.2016

      and the same could not be re-agitated again by him.



      23.        the plaintiff further submitted that the defendant had not

      placed on record a single document to substantiate his claim over the

      property, i.e. any title document or any agreement to sell. He further

      submitted that on the one hand, the defendant claimed to be the owner

      of the suit property as the same had been sold to him by the plaintiff

      and in the same breath also submitted that the sale deed for the same

      had not been executed in his favour. The plaintiff submitted that he

      had placed on record the Will dated 29.07.1966 executed by him

      mother and also the probate of the same. The plaintiff denied that the

      suit property was commercial in nature and stated that all the

      properties in the vicinity, i.e. Basti Peepal wali were residential

      properties and relied on a notice issued by the MCD in the name of the

      plaintiff's mother for payment of house property tax.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                            Page 13 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      24.        The plaintiff reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the

      plaint and denied the averments of the written statement.




      Issues framed

      25.        On the basis of the pleadings on record, the following issues

      were framed vide order dated 18.12.2017 by the ld. Predecessor of the

      Court:

      (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession, as prayed
      for ? OPP
      (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to user charges @ Rs.6,000/- p.m
      from 12.05.2016 till March 2017 @ Rs.8,000/- per month till actual
      realisation? OPP
      (iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to mental agony/litigation
      expenses/harassment charges of Rs.25,000/-? OPP
      (iv) Whether plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands? OPD
      (v) Whether plaint has been verified as prescribed u/O 6 Rule 15
      CPC? OPD
      (vi) Relief.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 14 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


      Evidence adduced by the plaintiff

      26.        The plaintiff Sh. Lakshman Singh examined himself as PW-1

      and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A on

      07.03.2018 in which the contents of the plaint were reiterated.



      27.          PW-1 relied upon the following documents in support of his

      case:

        a) Certified copy of the order dated 29.09.1980 passed in Probate

        Case no. 167/1977 as Ex. PW-1/1.

        b) Certified copy of the cross-examination of the defendant dated

        17.03.2016 recorded before the Court of Sh. V.K. Jha, Ld. Civil

        Judge, Tis Hazari as Ex. PW-1/2.

        c) Certified copy of the order dated 12.05.2016 passed in C.S. No.

        15/2015 titled as Lakshman vs Ahmad Shaid Qureshi as Ex. PW-1/3.

        d) Certified copy of the petition filed before Sh. V. K. Jha, Ld.

        Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari as Ex. PW-1/3X.

        e) Certified copy of the written statement filed in the above petition

        as Ex. PW-1/3Y.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 15 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        f) Certified copy of the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by Sh. Vijay

        Kumar Jha, Ld. Civil Judge as Ex. PW-1/4.

        g) Notice dated 10.09.2016 along with postal receipts as Ex. PW-1/5.

        h) Reply dated 03.10.2016 of the defendant as Ex. PW-1/6.

        I) Certified copy of the judgment dated 22.07.2016 as Ex. PW-1/7.

        j) Valuation and survey report of the Civil Engineer dated

        30.03.2017 as Ex. PW-1/8. (Objected as to the mode of proof)

        k) Site plan of the property as Ex. PW-1/9. (Objected as to the mode

        of proof)

        l) Plaint along with affidavit as Ex. PW-1/10. (Objected as to the

        mode of proof)



        28.        The plaintiff was cross-examined on 07.03.2018 during which

        he deposed that he was a co-owner of the suit property. He further

        stated that he did not remember whether he had mentioned before the

        Court of Sh. V.K. Jha, Ld. Civil Judge, whether he was a co-owner

        or not. He further deposed that he did not remember whether in the

        said suit he had also pleaded about Smt. Ganga Devi having




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 16 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        executed a will in his favour and stated that he had pleaded that a

        probate had been granted in his favour. Thereafter witness was

        confronted with Ex. PW-1/3X and he admitted that the said fact was

        not mentioned in the said petition. He further volunteered to state

        that he had told this fact to his counsel and had also filed the copy of

        the order of the probate case in the said suit. He further deposed that

        he was 10th pass and was not a graduate. Thereafter he stated that he

        did not come to know about the fact that he had not mentioned the

        will and probate in the said plaint and asked his counsel about the

        same. He deposed that the order of probate was never challenged and

        volunteered to state that an application for revocation was filed. He

        further deposed that he had relied on an order passed by Dr. Kamini

        Lau, Ld. ADJ and explained that the proceedings were an appeal

        filed by one Sh. Sunder Lal against an order passed by Sh. Anubhav

        Jain, Ld. Civil Judge in a suit titled as Kuntesh Kumari vs Kanhaiya

        Lal bearing No. 178/1978. The said suit had been filed before the Ld.

        Civil Judge, with respect to the property no. 2062/2, Basti Peepal

        Wali, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi -06 and 2086-87, Basti Peepal Wali, Sadar




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 17 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        Bazar, Delhi - 06. He stated that the present suit property i.e. 2075-

        2076 was not the subject matter of the dispute before the Court of

        Sh. Anubhav Jain, Ld. Civil Judge. He stated that by the time he

        filed the case in the court of Sh. V. K. Jha Ld. Civil Judge, by then a

        final decree had been passed by Sh. Anubhav Jain, Ld. Civil Judge.

        He stated that he had not mentioned in the pleadings filed before Sh.

        V. K. Jha, Ld. Civil Judge that a finald ecree had been passed by the

        Court of Sh. Anubhav Jain, Ld. Civil Judge. He stated that he had

        filed a copy of the will in the present case on the basis of which he

        was claiming ownership of the property. The witness was then asked

        to go through the judicial record and show the copy of the will. He

        deposed that he not filed the will, however the order of probate of the

        Court had been filed. He further deposed that he had filed the copy

        of the order of the probate court before the Court of Sh. V. . Jha, Ld.

        Civil Judge. Thereafter, the further cross-examination of the witness

        was deferred as the defendant wished to summon the record of the

        court of Sh. V. K. Jha, Ld. Civil Judge.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 18 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        29.      PW-1 was then recalled for his further cross-examination on

        09.04.2018 during which he was confronted with the summoned

        record of the Suit bearing No. 15.2015 titled as Lakshman Singh vs

        Ahmad Said Qureshi and asked to show the order of probate filed by

        him in the said petition. He stated that he had filed the order dated

        29.09.1980 in the said suit as well in the present suit and further

        deposed that he had filed the probate order in Suit No. 15.2015 on

        13.01.2016. The court observation was also recorded that the order

        dated 13.01.2016 did not record that any documents were filed,

        however it is recorded that reply was filed along with some

        documents. PW-1 further deposed that he did not know whether any

        application was filed for placing on record the said document and

        volunteered to state that his lawyer would know about the same. He

        stated that the revocation was filed in the year 2011, which was

        dismissed in the year 2018. He admitted that the revocation was

        pending before the Court of Sh. V.K. Jha, Ld. Civil Judge. He

        deposed that he did not remember whether the factum of revocation

        was mentioned in the pleadings in the suit filed before the Court of




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                             Page 19 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        Sh. V. K. Jha, Ld. Civil Judge. He further deposed that he did not file

        any title deeds issuing the title in favour of Ganga Devi and

        volunteered to state that he had filed the copy of the order passed by

        Dr. Kamini Lau. He further deposed that the sale deed was in the

        name of his mother Late Smt. Ganga Devi and his brother namely

        Sh. Kanhaiya Lal. He stated that he did not remember how many

        suits were pending between him and his family members in the year

        1981. He stated that in the year 1981 there was no case pending with

        respect to the suit property in the year 1981 between himself and his

        brother. He deposed that he did not remember whether any suit was

        pending in respect of the suit property in the Court of Ms. Chhavi

        Kapoor titled as Suit no. 74/2014 titled as Kanhaiya Lal vs Sunder

        Lal and Ors. Thereafter, the further cross-examination of the plaintiff

        was deferred.



        30.        The plaintiff was re-called for his further cross-examination

        on 17.04.2018 during which he deposed that Smt. Chanderkala was

        his bhabhi, who had filed one case against him, but did not




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                Page 20 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        remember when. He stated that he could neither admit nor deny

        whether a suit was filed by the said Smt. Chanderkala. He admitted

        that the title of the said suit was Chanderkala vs Kanhaiya Lal,

        however he did not know the nature of the said suit. He deposed that

        the suit was filed in regards to properties bearing no. 2062/2, 2086-

        2087, 2075-76. He further stated that the preliminary decree of

        partition was passed in the year 1979 in the said suit by Sh. V.K.

        Jain, Ld. Sub Judge, as he then was. He stated that he did not

        remember whether he had disclosed about the pendency of the suit

        filed before the Court of Ms. Chavi Kapoor in the suit suit filed by

        him which was pending before the Court of Sh. V. K. Jha. He stated

        that one case had been filed by Sunder Lal, which is pending

        adjudication before the Court of Ms. Pragati in which he was the

        party and volunteered to state that the said suit had been filed after

        the present suit. He stated that he did not know why Sunder Lal had

        filed the suit and volunteered to state that he had moved an

        application stating that the suit was not maintainable, and did not

        know whether he had filed the reply of the said suit or not.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                 Page 21 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17




        31.        He further deposed that he could neither admit nor deny

        whether the suit filed before the Court of Ms. Pragati, Ld. Civil

        Judge was for arrears of rent. He stated that his daughter Ms. Monika

        Singhal was the counsel in the suit filed before the Court of Ms.

        Pragati, Ld. Civil Judge. He deposed that he had claimed the

        defendant to be a licencee in respect of the suit property in the

        present suit. He deposed that he had given the suit property to the

        defendant as a tenant, which was not proved before the Court and

        stated that it had been given to the defendant as a rest room. He

        stated that he had given two adjoining rooms to the defendant, which

        were separated by a wall. The witness was then questioned as to

        whether the rooms were having a separate door, at which stage an

        observation was made by the Court that " The witness is giving

        evasive reply instead of answering the question. He has pointed out

        that the door is same as the on in which is attached to the Judges

        chamber" He then stated that the room was having only one door and

        volunteered to state that there was a door in between both the rooms.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                             Page 22 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        He further stated that no rent deed was got prepared and again stated

        that he did not remember. He further deposed that he did not have

        any document and could not tell how long he had let out the

        property. He also could not state whether the property was let out for

        a few years or in perpetuity. He stated that he had not got prepared

        any document by way of which the rent agreement was extended. He

        stated that he did not file any rent receipt which could show that he

        was taking rent from the defendant.



        32.        He further deposed that he knew the defendant as he used to

        live at Sarai Khalil in Sadar Bazqar. He admitted that the defendant

        was running a shop adjacent to the suit property and volunteered to

        state that the property belonged to Sansar Chand, bearing no.2101 as

        per his recollection. He denied the suggestion that the suit property

        were not rooms but were shops. He also denied the suggestion that

        the door of the shop used to open in the gali where there were other

        shops. He deposed that he could not state with certainty whether

        photograph Mark X belonged to the suit property. He stated that the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 23 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        photograph Ex. PW-1/DX1 resembled the suit property. He stated

        that he had gone to the shop of the defendant many times, but could

        not identify the shop of the defendant from the photographs Mark Y,

        Y1 or Y2. He deposed that he could not identify the person shown in

        the photograph Y2 at point A. He stated that the defendant was

        dealing in tin/iron sheets, but did not know about the area in which

        the shop of the defendant was located. He denied the suggestion that

        the back side wall of the suit property was along with the shop of the

        defendant and volunteered to state that it was on the side. He stated

        that he did not remember where the defendant used to reside in the

        year 1981 and could not neither admit nor deny whether the

        defendant was residing in Inder Lok in the year 1981. He stated that

        he did not know when the defendant used to open or close his shop.

        He stated that he never resided in the year 1981 in the suit property

        and used to reside there prior to 1981. He deposed that he did not

        know whether the defendant was facing shortage of space and

        therefore he had taken the suit property on rent. He denied the

        suggestion that the suit property was not let out for use as a rest




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 24 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        room. He also denied the suggestion that the suit property was

        purchased by the defendant in the year 1981 for a sum of Rs. 3Lakhs.

        He further denied the suggestion that the amount was given in the

        presence of two witnesses. He also denied the suggestion that the

        wall in between the shop of the defendant and the suit property was

        demolished in his presence at the time of the alleged purchase. He

        also denied the suggestion that he had executed any receipt for the

        sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. He denied the suggestion that an assurance was

        given to the defendant that he would provide him with the title deed

        later on as litigation was pending between the family members in

        respect to the suit property. He deposed that he did not know as to

        when he had gone to collect the rent from the defendant, and again

        stated that he had gone to collect rent in the year 2014. He denied the

        suggestion that the defendant had not given any rent as he had

        purchased the suit property. He further stated that he had not filed

        any suit prior to the year 2015 against the defendant claiming rent.

        Thereafter, the further cross-examination of the plaintiff was

        deferred.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 25 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17




        33.      The plaintiff was recalled for his cross-examination on

        20.07.2018, during which he stated that he had gone to demand rent

        on 10.07.2014 at around 5-6 p.m., and he had gone to demand rent

        and not licence fees. He deposed that he never went to 2101 after the

        same. He stated that he had gone to the factory of the defendant

        situated in Tri Nagar, and again stated Inder Lok, after 10.07.2014

        for demanding rent but did not remember the exact date. He deposed

        that he did not remember after how many months of 10.07.2014, he

        had gone to the factory of the defendant. He deposed that the number

        of the defendant's factory was 170. He denied the suggestion that the

        defendant's factory was not situated at Inder Lok. He stated that he

        had gone only once at the factory of the defendant after 10.07.2014.

        He deposed that he had filed the present suit in January/February of

        2015. He stated that he did not know the section under which there

        was a prohibition of conversion from residential to commercial under

        the DMC Act, 1957. He deposed that he did not know the section

        under DMC Act, under which permission was required to remove the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                             Page 26 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        walls of different properties. He deposed that he did not know under

        which section/bye law/ rule of the Delhi Master Plan, 2021 the

        properties had been combined. He stated that since 2000, he had

        visited the suit property 6-7. He stated that he had gone for the first

        time in December, 2000 and further volunteered to state that he had

        been visiting the property in question since the time of its purchase

        by his mother and had lastly gone in July, 2014 but did not

        remember in which year he had visited in between. He further

        deposed that he had not stated that the defendant has made two

        openings in the portion in his possession and volunteered to state that

        the defendant has closed his gate which was opening in the gali and

        opened the gate towards his shop by breaking the wall. He denied the

        suggestion that the said wall was broken by the defendant since the

        date he had purchased the property. The plaintiff admitted that he

        was claiming the ownership of the of the portion in possession of the

        defendant on the basis of the will of Late Smt. Ganga Devi dated

        29.07.1966. He deposed that on 29.09.1980, Sh. G.C. Jain, the then

        Ld. District & Sessions Judge had granted probate of the said will.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 27 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        He deposed that the revocation application was decided on

        31.01.2018. He denied the suggestion that he had no right, title or

        interest in the year 1981 euther on the basis of the will or by virtue of

        title deeds. He denied the suggestion that he had taken money from

        the defendant and since he had no title, therefore he had not executed

        any documents in favour of the defendant. He deposed that property

        no. 2075-76 was the subject matter of the will executed by Late Smt.

        Ganga Devi and nothing had been mentioned in the will regarding

        the manner in which the property was to be divided.



        34.        He further stated that the final decree in the suit for partition,

        in which the preliminary decree was passed in the year 1979, had

        been passed by the Court of Sh. Anubhav Jain, Ld. Civil Judge. He

        denied the suggestion that the property bearing No. 2075-2076 was

        part of the final decree. He further stated that he did not know when

        the property no. 2075-2076 was constructed and volunteered to state

        that his mother had purchased it as it is in the year 1958 from Sh.

        Banarsi Dass. He deposed that the width of the wall was more than 9




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                    Page 28 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        inches and admitted that the roof of the property was on wooden

        planks/kadi and brick stone slabs. He stated that he did not know

        whether the said property had pillars or not. He stated that he did

        now know which walls were bearing the load of the wooden

        planks/kadi. He denied the suggestion that the wall which had been

        removed by the defendant was not a load bearing wall and

        volunteered to state that he had affixed iron gutters. The witness was

        again shown the photograph Ex. PW-1/DX1 and stated that the door

        depicted in the same was of the property in question. He stated that

        he could not state whether the walls as shown in the photograph Ex.

        PW-1/DX1 were load bearing walls as the photograph was not clear.

        He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not giving the

        correct answer to conceal facts. The further cross-examination of the

        witness was deferred.



        35.        The plaintiff was recalled for his further cross-examination on

        18.08.2018 during which he deposed that the site plan filed by him

        had been prepared on his instructions and he had taken the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                  Page 29 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        draughtsman to the site. He stated that the size of one of the rooms

        was 10 feet x 9 feet, with height being 10 feet. He admitted that the

        property bearing no. 2075-76 was not constructed in his presence. He

        deposed that the sale deed through which his mother derived the title

        was also in the name of his brother. He further stated that he visited

        the shop of the defendant in July, 2014 and at that he also met him

        inside the shop. He admitted that tin sheets were stored inside the

        shop. He admitted that at point X in Ex. PW-1/9, the property of

        other persons had been shown. The entry of the X portion was from

        Sadar Nala Road. He denied the suggestion that there were shops in

        the portion shown as X and volunteered to state that there were

        stores. He deposed that he did not know whether shops were running

        in the portion shown as X and volunteered to state that most of them

        were being used as godown and remained closed. He denied the

        suggestion that the entire area around the suit property was a

        commercial area and used as such. He stated that he never had a shop

        in the suit property and volunteered to state that his shop was in

        property no. 2121. He stated that the defendant had closed the main




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 30 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        door with concrete in July, 2014. He denied the suggestion that the

        defendant had closed the door in the year 1981 itself, when the same

        was purchased by him. He admitted that there was a door in the suit

        property towards the outside. He denied the suggestion that he was

        falsely stating the same was closed from inside in July, 2014. He

        admitted that prior to 1981, there was no ingress or outgress in the

        suit property from Sadar Nala Road. He deposed that the distance

        between the shop of the defendant and the suit property was about 2-

        3 minutes. He stated that he did not know how many shops were

        there between the gali connecting the Sadar Nala Road and the suit

        property. He denied the suggestion that the walking distance of the

        defendant's shop no. 2101 and the suit property was of 15-20

        minutes. Thereafter the further cross-examination of the plaintiff was

        deferred.



        36.        The plaintiff was recalled for his further cross-examination on

        21.08.2018 during which he stated that he had not filed any rent

        agreement or rent receipts with respect to the first floor of the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                  Page 31 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        property. He denied the suggestion that he had not filed the same as

        the first floor of the property had not been rented out. He admitted

        that he did not file any photographs to show that his property was

        damaged as stated by him in para no.6 of his affidavit. He denied the

        suggestion that they were not filed as there was no damage or cracks

        in the property. He stated that he did not remember the rate of rent

        which he had claimed in the suit filed by him before the Court of Sh.

        V.K. Jha, Ld. Civil Judge or the names of the witnesses examined by

        him. He denied the suggestion that the Court of Sh. V.K. Jha did not

        declare the defendant as a licensee. He denied the suggestion that the

        defendant was neither in illegal possession no an unauthorized

        occupant/trespasser. He deposed that he could not state the section of

        law under which a matter once decided could not be re-agitated. He

        deposed that he had never told the defendant with respect to his

        family disputes. He denied the suggestion that when he sold the

        property to the defendant, he disclosed to him that there was a family

        dispute in respect of the suit property and volunteered to state that he

        never sold the property to the defendant and denied the suggestion




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 32 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        otherwise. He deposed that he did not give any notice to the

        defendant either in the year 1981 or thereafter claiming the defendant

        to be a licencee, and volunteered to state that notice of revocation

        was issued and the order was also passed in his favour. He deposed

        that he did not file any document to show that the suit property was

        being used by the defendant for residential purpose. He denied the

        suggestion         the     the   defendant   was   not   an   unauthorised

        occupant/trespasser from 24.05.2016 onwards. He stated that he had

        not filed any document to show that the adjoining property was

        fetching a rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month and denied the suggestion

        that no property in the vicinity commanded a rent of Rs. 6,000/- per

        month. He deposed that the valuer had visited the suit property and

        denied the suggestion that the valuation report Ex. PW-1/A was

        false, forged and fabricated at his instance. He stated that the valuer

        made enquiries from the adjoining shops, but he could not name the

        shopkeepers from whom enquiry was made. He stated that no site

        plan was prepared by the valuer. He deposed that he had not filed

        any document except the report of the valuer to prove the mesne




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                  Page 33 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        profits of Rs. 8,000/- after April, 2017. He denied the suggestion that

        from April, 2017 a sum of Rs. 8,000/- could be fetched in the locality

        in which the suit property was situated. He further denied the

        suggestions that the defendant was not liable to pay any damages or

        interest to him or hand over the possession to him. He also denied

        the suggestion that the defendant was not liable to pay Rs. 25,000/-

        as litigation expenses/harassment. Thereafter the plaintiff was

        discharged as a witness.



        37.        Sh. Satish Kumar, Judicial Assistant, Record Room Civil, Tis

        Hazari Courts was summoned as witness PW-2 to produce the

        summoned record, i.e. case file of suit bearing no. 15/2015, titled as

        Lakshman Singh vs Ahmed Sahid Qureshi, decided on 12.05.2016,

        Goshwara No. 49/CD decided by the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Jha,

        Ld. Civil Judge, who stated that the certified copy Ex. PW-1/2, Ex.

        PW-1/3, Ex. PW-1/3X, Ex. PW-1/3Y and Ex. PW-1/4 were the same

        as per the record summoned.



        38.      Sh. Ghanshyam, Junior Judicial Assistant, Record Room



Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 34 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        Sessions, Tis Hazari Court was summoned as witness PW-3 to

        produce the summoned record, i.e. record of the case file of suit

        bearing RCA No. 87/2015 titled as Sunder Lal vs Kuntesh Kumari,

        bearing Goshwara no. 139 D decided by the court of Dr. Kamini

        Lau, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, decided on 22.07.2017 and stated

        that the certified copy Ex.PW-1/7 was the correct certified copy of

        the judgment dated 22.07.2016.



        39.        Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his evidence on 28.11.2018.



        Evidence adduced by the Defendant

        40.      The defendant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and was

        granted opportunity to lead his evidence on 14.02.2019, 16.4.2019,

        22.07.2019, 23.09.2014 and 06.12.2019. However, the defendant

        took repeated adjournments and his right to lead evidence was closed

        vide order dated 06.12.2019. The defendant also moved an

        application under Order 26 rule 2 CPC seeking the appointment of a

        local commissioner for the purpose of recording of his evidence,

        however the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2020



Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                  Page 35 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        observing that the right of the defendant to lead evidence was also

        closed vide order dated 06.12.2020.



        ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

        41.      Ld. counsel for the plaintiff Dr. Monika Singhal has argued

        that the defendant has not been able to prove any alleged transaction

        of Rs.3 Lakhs and hence, the status of the defendant in the suit

        no.15/15 titled as Lakshman Singh v. Ahmed Shahid Qureshi was

        held that be of licensee only, hence, the claim of the defendant is

        barred by the principle of Res-judicata. It is further contended that

        the defendant has not placed a single title document to substantiate

        his right over the property nor has he filed any agreement to sell etc.

        Further, it is the admitted case that the defendant got the possession

        of the suit property from the plaintiff and that he is misusing the

        partition suit pending between the family members of the plaintiff. It

        is vehemently contended that the defendant is engaged in frivolous

        litigation against the plaintiff and relied upon the cases titled as H.S.

        Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, 2016 (I) AD Delhi 661




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                Page 36 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470. The

        Ld. Counsel for plaintiff also relied upon the law laid down in the

        following cases in support of his contention that the defendant, being

        the licensor, cannot be allowed to challenge the ownership of the

        plaintiff:

        1. Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera & Ors., arising out of SLP

        (Civil) No.10194 of 2007 and 15058 of 2007

        2. Vidhyandhar Vs. Manikrao & Anr, AIR 1999 SC 1441

        3. G. Balaji Vs. Saravanaswamy, CRP (PD) No.2182 of 2019 &

        CMP No.2182 of 2019.



        42.      Ld. Counsel for the defendant Sh. T. R. Sharma has argued

        that the evidence by way of affidavit of the plaintiff is not as per the

        rules of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as the father's name of the

        deponent has not been mentioned. Further, the evidence by way of

        affidavit is false as the plaintiff has mentioned his age on 20.1.2015

        as about 67 years and in the affidavit filed on 26.2.2018 i.e. after 3

        years as 69, which is not possible. Further in the verification, the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 37 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        place of execution of the affidavit has not been mentioned. The

        signatures on both the places at deponent are different and hence the

        affidavit in evidence is not to be read and the suit is liable to be

        dismissed as there is no evidence of the plaintiff. Further, the

        plaintiff has mentioned various sections of the       DMC Act and

        deposed that there is prohibition of converting the residential

        property into commercial, and that the removal of the wall is illegal

        as per Delhi Master Plan, 2021. The said affidavit has been prepared

        by the counsel without the instructions of the plaintiff. In the

        plaintiff's cross-examination dated 20.7.2018, he has stated that " I

        do not know the sec. under which there is a prohibition of conversion

        from residential to commercial under the MCD act.1957. I do not

        know the section under which permission is required under DMC

        act." contrary to that in the affidavit the sections have been

        mentioned specifically. This clearly shows that the affidavit has been

        prepared by the counsel himself. He has further argued that the

        defendant was having a big shop with him and the question of taking

        shops for the purpose baithak does not arise as all. The shops were




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 38 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        purchased by the defendant, which were adjacent to his own shops

        owing to paucity of accommodation. Further, the plaintiff has

        claimed himself to be the 'owner/co-owner' of the property bearing

        no. 2075-2076 and is not sure about his status own status with

        respect to the property. Further, the plaintiff has not filed any title

        document in his favour. The plaintiff claim his rights only through

        the alleged an Will executed by Smt. Ganga Devi on 29.7.1996. The

        plaintiff has not filed and proved any title document in favour of

        Smt. Ganga Devi or said Will as required under the provisions of

        Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff has stated in his cross

        examination dated 07.03.2018 at page 4 that " I have filed the copy

        of the WILL in the present suit on the basis of which I am claiming

        my ownership. At this state witness is asked to go through the

        judicial file and show the copy of the WILL. At this stage the

        witness submits that WILL has not been filed " The witness has

        further admitted in his cross examination on 18.8.22018 at first page

        at fifth line from the bottom that " The sale deed through which my

        mother had derived title was also in the name of my Brother " The




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 39 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        witness/plaintiff has stated in cross-examination dated 7.3.2018 at

        page 3 " The order of probate was never challenged. Vol. an

        application for revocation was filed." The plaintiff in his evidence in

        examination in chief in Para 15 that " The issue pertaining to the said

        property were finally decided by the Court of Dr. Kamini Lau ADJ

        Central District Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide order dt. 22.7.2016. "

        Thus it is apparently clear that the plaintiff was not the owner of the

        property or having any right to sell the same and hence stated to the

        defendant that due to dispute is going on in the family and he will

        execute the documents after some time. The defendant had paid a

        sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Only) on the assurance of

        the plaintiff and the possession of the shops was taken after making

        the payment. However the receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three

        Lakhs) was not traceable and lost and hence the defendant could not

        produced the same. The provisions of Sec. 53A of T.P.Act provide

        that if the possession has been taken and any amount is paid then the

        rights has been created. The defendant could not have filed the

        present suit as the matters were pending and as per plaintiff which




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 40 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        was finally decided on 22.7.2016. The plaintiff had already filed the

        suit against the defendant claiming the defendant to be a tenant on

        21.1.2015 which was dismissed by the court of Shri. V.K.Jhan the

        then C.J. Delhi on 12.5.2016. It is relevant to submit that the

        defendant was cross examine by Ms. Monika,             counsel for the

        plaintiff/Lakshman Singh (who is the daughter of plaintiff ). In the

        entire cross examination the counsel for the plaintiff i.e. Ms. Monika

        had not even given the suggestion that no receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/-

        (Rs.Three Lac) was executed. Thus the presumption will be made

        that the receipt has been given by the plaintiff.



        43.      He has further argued that the plaintiff had stated in his

        examination in chief, that the probate has been granted in his favour,

        but when the witness was allowed to go through the Ex.Pw1/3X and

        after going through the same he said that it is not mentioned in the

        plaint. The witness stated "Vol. I had told my counsel as well as I

        had filed the copy of order of probate case in the said suit. " at page 3

        of cross examination dt. 7.3.2018. Further the question was put to the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                Page 41 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        witness "Q. Whether after reading the plaint which was filed before

        the court of Sh. V.K.Jha Ld. C.J. did you come to know that the fact

        of WILL and Probate has not been mentioned in the said plaint? "

        The witness in clever way replied that " technically I did not come to

        know about this fact". The witness further replied that he had asked

        his counsel as to why he has not incorporate the fact of Will and

        probate in the said plaint. (The counsel was his daughter who cross

        examine the defendant in that suit.) Due to evasive reply in clever

        way the Ld. predecessor court had given its observation at page 2 of

        cross examination dt.17.4.2018 that "The witness is giving evasive

        reply instead of answering the question. " The Ld. predecessor court

        has further mentioned that "Witness is warned to give replies on the

        question being asked rather than giving answers which suits his

        case." Thereafter the defendant had summoned the case file of the

        case suit no. 15/2015, titled as Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Saeed

        decided by the court of Shri. V.K.Jha the then C.J. and RCA No.

        87/2015 titled as Sunder Lal vs Kuntesh Kumari decided by the court

        of Ms. Kamini Lau the then ADJ. which was allowed on 7.3.2018.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                             Page 42 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17




        44.      It is further argued that in the evidence by way of affidavit of

        the plaintiff, he has stated that the two rooms had rented/licensed in

        the year 1981. The Ld. Court of Shri. V.K.Jha had given its finding

        vide judgment dt. 12.5.2016 "that the defendant is not tenant in the

        suit property" at page 17 of the judgment and dismissed the case of

        the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not filed any appeal or other

        proceedings against the said judgment, to prove that the defendant is

        tenant. However the plaintiff has been claiming now that the

        defendant is licensee. It is relevant to submit that the present issue

        was not in that suit. The issue was " whether the plaintiff is entitled to

        recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 54,000/- as prayed for? "

        The Ld. Court of Shri. V.K.Jha C.J. had to decide the said issue and

        thus had to decide that whether there is any relation of the land lord

        and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. Thus finding on this

        point that the there is no relation of land lord or tenant were matter in

        issue but it was not in issue as to whether the defendant was a

        licencee. Further, the said observation given by the Court is Obiter




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                 Page 43 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        Dictum and is not binding on the defendant in the present suit.

        However this observation has been given saying that the defendant

        had got possession through plaintiff. However this observation has

        been only on the fact that the defendant had mentioned that he was

        put in possession by the plaintiff after receiving a sum of Rs.

        3,00,000/- on account of having paid the sale consideration. Thus on

        this observation the plaintiff cannot claim the defendant as licensee.

        It is relevant even other wise the Ld. Court of Shri. V.K.Jha C.J.

        Delhi had not given the finding that the defendant is licensee.

        However the present suit has been filed claiming the defendant is a

        trespasser as the licence has been revoked. It has been mentioned in

        the present suit that the plaintiff had gone for recovery of

        rental/license fees, that is contrary to the contents of the said suit. It

        is an admitted case of the plaintiff that his case for recovery of rent

        has been dismissed and it has been decided finally that there is no

        relation of land-lord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant.



        45.      Further in respect of alleged contention that the defendant was




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                 Page 44 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        licensee is also not acceptable. A person to whom once claimed a

        tenant cannot be again claimed as licensee. It is admitted case that

        since 1981 the plaintiff had not gone to the shops, till 2014. It is clear

        that the plaintiff who was well aware that he had sold the suit

        property so never gone there. However when the daughter of the

        plaintiff Ms. Monika became advocate then at her instance and

        persuasion the plaintiff started to weave the web to harass the

        defendant and other persons. The plaintiff filed the other suit against

        the defendant in collusion with MCD and further another suit

        pending in the court of Shri.Parnav Joshi A.S.C.J Delhi. Thus the

        present suit has been filed falsely to harass the defendant.



        46.      It is case of the plaintiff that he has filed the present suit

        claiming the defendant was licensee. The plaintiff has claimed that

        the alleged license has been revoked on 12.5.2016 vide notice dated

        10.9.2016. The alleged revocation has no force. Once the plaintiff

        has not proved that the defendant is a licensee, then the alleged

        notice is not on the date of alleged revocation. A person cannot be




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                 Page 45 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        tenant as well as licensee simultaneously. The plaintiff further

        mentioned in his affidavit that the defendant has been residing in the

        suit premises as licensee from the year 1981 but has filed the

        previous suit claiming the defendant as tenant which was dismissed.

        The plaintiff's claim that the first floor of the property was given to

        a tenant is also not proved as he did not file any document to prove

        the same or examine the said tenant. Thus the plaintiff falsely tried

        to show that he is owner of the property.



        47.      The plaintiff has also failed to prove any claim for damages in

        his favour. The plaintiff was also questioned in cross examination

        that whether he had filed any photograph(s) or any other document to

        show that the damage has been caused to the property. Thus the

        plaintiff has failed to prove that any damage has been caused to the

        property as claimed by him. The photographs of the property were

        shown to the plaintiff but intentionally he stated in cross-examination

        dated 17.4.2018 at page 3 in 11th line from the top that " I cannot say

        with certainty whether the photo graph mark X belongs to the suit




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                Page 46 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        property. The photograph Ex.Pw1/Dx-1 resembles the suit property."

        He further stated that "I also cannot identify the person shown in the

        photograph Y2 encircled in point A". The plaintiff also intentionally

        did not identify the person in the photograph, who was the son of the

        defendant.



        48.      The plaintiff's claim of mesne profits/damages is also not

        proved as he did not examine any witness to prove the said fact that

        in the vicinity such rent can be fetched. Even otherwise the

        defendant is not trespasser or unauthorized occupant and thus not

        liable to pay any mesne profits/damages. The plaintiff also did not

        examine the alleged author of the valuation report Ram Singh to

        prove the same. In fact the said report is false one and has been

        prepared at the instance of the plaintiff.



        49.      The defendant has been enjoying the uninterrupted and

        peaceful possession since 1981 to 2015 shows that the defendant has

        rights in the property. He has further argued that the plaintiff himself

        admits that litigations were pending regarding title of the suit



Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 47 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        property in 1981 and the same was finally decided in 2016 and

        further the suit filed by his brother Sunder Lal remained pending

        thereafter. Thus, the plaintiff had no right to execute any documents

        to sell the property and only handed over the possession after taking

        a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as the sale consideration and assured to

        execute the relevant title documents as and when the litigation would

        be settled. The plaintiff did not execute any title documents, but filed

        the previous false suit claiming the defendant as tenant. When the

        said suit was dismissed further filed the present false suit claiming

        the defendant as a trespasser. He argued that the plaintiff was

        required to prove his own case and cannot stand on the weakness of

        the defendant.



        50.      He has further argued that in probate proceedings, the

        ownership of the testator is not considered and only the fact of the

        the execution of the valid execution of the Will is taken into account.

        Thus, a person claiming his rights to a property through a Will, will

        still have to prove the ownership/title of the testator. Thus grant of




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 48 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        probate or letter of Administration does not confer the title of the

        property. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of

        Delhi in D.D.A. vs Dr. K.K. Srivastava, 09(2004)DLT849:

        2004(73)DRJ60 in this regards. Hence, the plaintiff has failed to

        prove any of the issues in this case and hence the suit of the plaintiff

        is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.



        51.      I have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsels for

        the parties and perused the record and shall now proceed to decide

        the issues framed in the present suit.



        Issue wise findings and reasons:

        Issues no.4 and 5

        52. I shall first decide issues no.4 and 5, which are reproduced below

        for the sake of convenience:

        (iv) Whether plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands? OPD

        (v) Whether plaint has been verified as prescribed u/O 6 Rule 15

        CPC? OPD




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                               Page 49 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        53.      The onus on the above-mentioned issues was on the defendant,

        who has not led any evidence to prove the above-mentioned issue.

        Further, the perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiff reveals that the

        plaintiff has verified the same at the foot of the plaint and also

        affixed his signatures. The plaintiff has further stated that the para

        no.1 to 23 of the plaint are based on his personal knowledge.

        Although the verification does not mention the date and the same has

        been left blank as "Verified at Delhi, on this _____ 2017", the same

        is a minor omissions. Hence, I find that the plaint appears to have

        been verified as per the provisions of Order VI rule 15 CPC.

        Accordingly, the issues no. 4 and 5 are decided against the

        defendant.



        Issues no. 1-3

        54.      I shall next decide issues no. 1-3, which are reproduced below

        for the sake of convenience:

        i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession, as prayed

        for ? OPP




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                 Page 50 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to user charges @ Rs.6,000/- p.m

        from 12.05.2016 till March 2017 @ Rs.8,000/- per month till actual

        realisation? OPP

        (iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to mental agony/litigation

        expenses/harassment charges of Rs.25,000/-? OPP



        55.      The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of

        possession in his favour with respect to the suit property, i.e. 2075-

        2076, Basti Peepal Wali, Sadar bazaar, Delhi - 110006, along with

        mesne profits and damages.



        56.      The plaintiff has claimed himself to be the owner/co-owner of

        the suit property, which has been bequeathed to him vide will dated

        29.07.1966 executed by his mother Late Smt. Ganga Devi. The

        plaintiff did not place on record the said will dated 29.07.1966 and

        filed only the Order dated 29.09.1990 passed by the Court of Sh. G.

        C. Jain, Ld. District Judge, Delhi as Ex. PW-1/1, whereby the

        petition under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 filed




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 51 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        by the plaintiff and his brother Sh. Sohan Lal was allowed and a

        letter of administration was issued in their favour with respect to the

        aforementioned will.



        57.      Although it is settled law that mere probate of a will does not

        prove the ownership of the property bequeathed under the said will

        as a probate only confirms a will as having been validly executed. In

        the present case, the defendant himself has not raised any challenge

        to the plaintiff's claim as owner/co-owner of the suit property, rather

        the defendant has traced his own title to the suit property from the

        plaintiff himself claiming that the same has been purchased by him

        for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs in the year 1981, however the sale

        documents have not been executed by the plaintiff on the pretext that

        some dispute was going on in his family and he would execute the

        same after some time. Hence, the defendant himself admitted the

        plaintiff as being a co-owner of the suit property. Therefore, in such

        circumstances, the plaintiff is not required to prove the same as per

        section 53 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (section 58 of




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                Page 52 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872).



        58.      Further, coming to the question whether the plaintiff is the

        owner or a co-owner in the present suit, during his cross-examination

        dated 09.04.2018, the plaintiff has admitted that the " Sale deed was

        in the name of my mother late Smt. Ganga Devi and my brother

        namely Kanhaiya Lal." Hence, it appears that the plaintiff is not the

        sole owner of the property and is a co-owner in the present suit.

        However, it does not affect the right of the plaintiff to recover

        possession as it is settled law that even a co-sharer can maintain a

        suit for ejectment.



        59.      Coming now to the question of whether the status of the

        defendant as a licencee stands already determined by the application

        of the principles of res judicata as per the judgment passed by the

        Court of Sh. V.K. Jha, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in Suit no.

        15/2015 titled as 'Lakshman Singh vs Ahmad Sahid Qureshi', Ex.

        PW-1/3. The plaintiff has proved the certified copy plaint/petition in




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 53 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        the said case as Ex. PW-1/3X. The certified copy of the written

        statement has been proved as Ex. PW-1/3Y. The certified copy of the

        cross-examination of the defendant dated 17.03.2016 recorded before

        the Court of Sh. V.K. Jha, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari has been

        proved as Ex. PW-1/2.



        60.      The aforementioned suit bearing CS No. 15/2015 titled as

        'Lakshman Singh vs Ahmad Sahid Qureshi', Ex. PW-1/3X, was filed

        by the present plaintiff against the defendant before the Ld. Senior

        Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts seeking arrears of

        rent of Rs. 54,000/-, claiming that the plaintiff was the 'owner and

        landlord' of the suit property and the defendant was a tenant in

        respect of two rooms in the suit property, which had been let out to

        him at a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- per month, which had been

        increased from Rs. 300/- over time. The other pleadings in the

        present suit with respect to the defendant having altered the suit

        property by removing two walls and closing a door were also

        reiterated. The plaintiff claimed arrears of rent from 01.04.2011 till




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 54 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        31.12.2014, i.e. 14 months of rent @ Rs. 54,000/- per month. The

        plaintiff did not claim any relief with respect to the demolition of the

        common wall in the suit property.



        61.      The defendant resisted the said suit by filing his written

        statement, Ex. PW-1/3Y, in which he raised the same defence as in

        the present suit, that is the plaintiff had intended to let out the shops

        to the defendant, however prior to the defendant taking possession,

        the plaintiff offered their sale instead and the defendant purchased

        the same for Rs. 3 lakhs in July, 1981. Further, no sale deed was

        executed as the plaintiff claimed that there was a family dispute

        ongoing.



        62.      The defendant was cross-examined in the said suit on

        17.03.2016, Ex. PW-1/2 during which he admitted that the plaintiff

        was the owner of the suit property and that no sale deed was ever

        executed and he never filed any suit for specific performance. The

        relevant portion of the cross-examination of the defendant is




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                Page 55 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        reproduced below:

        Suit No.15/15
        17.03.2016


        DW1: Ahamad Saeed Qureshi (recalled for cross examination after 01.12.2015).
        XXXX by Ms. Monika, Id. counsel for plaintiff.
        I am aware of the contents of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. Same was drafted in my
        presence under my instructions. I have bought immovable property and I am
        aware of the formalities which are to be done. It is wrong to suggest that I have
        taken the suit property on rent. I am the owner of the suit property. I do not have
        any documents regarding the suit property indicating that I am the owner of the
        suit property. It is wrong to suggest that between myself, defendant and plaintiff
        rent agreement was executed had not taken the suit property on rent. I had
        purchased the suit property from Sh. Lakshman Singh (plaintiff). The plaintiff
        was the owner of the suit property.
        Court Ques: Tell the court if between you and the plaintiff whether any
        registered document was executed in your favour regarding the suit
        property?
        Ans No.
        I have asked the plaintiff several times for the execution of documents regarding
        the suit property Vol. Before buying the suit property from the plaintiff I had the
        adjacent shop and after buying the suit property from the plaintiff, i demolished
        the common wall so that I may have larger shop.


        Court Ques Did you file any case for execution of documents by the plaintiff
        regarding the suit property in your favour?
        Ans: No




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                         Page 56 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        63.      The aforementioned Suit No. 15/2015 was disposed off vide a
        judgment dated 12.05.2016, Ex. PW-1/3, which records that on
        26.05.2015, the following issues were framed in the suit:
        1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of arrears of rent
                 amounting to Rs. 54,000/-, as prayed for?
        2. Relief


        64.      While deciding issue no.1, the Court held that the plaintiff was

        required to prove (i) that he was the landlord of the suit property, (ii)

        that the defendant was his tenant, (iii) the rate of rent as Rs. 1,500/-

        per month, (iv) which was not paid since 01.04.2001.



        65.      The judgment further notes that during the cross-examination

        of the plaintiff, he stated that the suit property was given on rent in

        the year 1981 under a rent agreement which was no longer traceable

        and further that no rent receipts were also issued.



        66.      The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the

        defendant as his tenant and the defendant had also failed to prove his

        purchase of the suit property and hence, the only logical conclusion




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                Page 57 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        would be that the defendant was a licencee in the suit property as per

        section 52 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882.



        67.      The principle of res judicata are the basis of section 11 of the

        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is reproduced below:


        S. 11 Res judicata
        No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially
        in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the
        same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim,
        litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit
        or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard
        and finally decided by such Court.


        Explanation I.-- The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been
        decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
        Explanation II.-- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court
        shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from
        the decision of such Court.

        Explanation III.--The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been
        alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by
        the other.

        Explanation IV.-- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground
        of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter
        directly and substantially in issue in such suit.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                         Page 58 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17

        Explanation V.-- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted
        by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been
        refused.

        Explanation VI.-- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or
        of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons
        interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim
        under the persons so litigating .

        Explanation VII.-- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for
        the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or
        former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the
        execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former
        proceeding for the execution of that decree.


        Explanation VIII.-- An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited
        jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a
        subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not
        competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been
        subsequently raised.



        68.      As per section 11, there are five conditions which must be

        satisfied in order for the principle of res judicata to apply:



        (i) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent
        suit, must be the same matter, which was directly and substantially in
        issue, either actually or constructively in the former suit.
        (ii) The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties
        or between the parties under whom they claim.



Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                          Page 59 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        (iii) In the former suit, the parties must have litigated under the same
        title.
        (iv) The Court, which decided the former suit, must have been
        competent to try the subsequent suit.
        (v) The matter, which is direct and substantially in issue in the
        subsequent suit, must have been heard and finally decided by the
        Court in the former suit.


        69.      In the present case, the parties are admittedly the same and

        they are also litigating under the same title. The question is whether

        the issue of the status of the defendant was directly and substantially

        in issue in the former suit?



        70.      The first suit had been filed by the plaintiff claiming arrears of

        rent from the defendant, in which the Court was required to

        adjudicate as to the status of the parties, the same issue of the status

        of parties has again arisen in the present subsequent suit. Hence, I

        find that the issue of the status of parties was directly and

        substantially in issue between the parties in the former suit as well,

        which already stands adjudicated. Therefore, I find that the issue




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                  Page 60 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        already stands decided between the parties as per the application of

        the principles of res judicata.



        71.      Further, even otherwise if the issue of res judicata is

        momentarily kept aside, even in the present suit, the plaintiff has

        failed to prove any tenancy created by him against the defendant.

        The plaintiff has not brought into evidence any rent agreement or

        rent receipts executed with the defendant. No payment of any rent by

        the defendant has also been proved by him. Further, the defendant

        has also failed to prove his stand as owner of the suit property. No

        proof of payment of the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs has been led into

        evidence by him. It is an admitted case that no sale deed was ever

        executed between the parties and further, he did not file any suit for

        specific performance. In such circumstances, the status of the

        defendant in the suit property is deemed to be that of a licencee.

        Accordingly, in such circumstances, the licensor is always at liberty

        to revoke the licence and recover the possession of the property. In

        the present case, I find that same has duly been revoked by the




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                              Page 61 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        plaintiff vide his legal notice dated 10.09.2016, Ex. PW-1/5.

        Accordingly, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and

        the plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of possession, as prayed for.



        72.      The next question which arises is with respect to the quantum

        of mesne profits, which the plaintiff is entitled to. The plaintiff has

        claimed mesne profits of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. from 12.05.2016 till

        March, 2017 and from April, 2017 onwards @ Rs. 8,000/- per

        month. The plaintiff has not led into evidence any rent agreement of

        any property in the vicinity and has relied on a valuation and survey

        report of a Civil Engineer dated 30.03.2017, Ex. PW-1/9. However

        as the author, i.e. the Civil Engineer himself has not been examined,

        the said report has not been proved and cannot be read into evidence.



        73.      However, it is settled law that Courts are empowered to take

        judicial notice of the prevailing rents in the city as under section

        51/52 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adiniyam, 2023 (section 56/57 of the

        erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872). I may refer to the decision of

        the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Suman Verma & Ors V. Sushil



Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                 Page 62 of 66
 CS DJ No.1607/17


        Mohini Gupta & Ors , 2014 (10) DRJ 595, the relevant portions of

        which are reproduced below:



        "22. I do not find any merit in the challenge by the appellants/defendants to the
        rate at which the mesne profits/damages for use and occupation have been
        awarded, for the following reasons:-


                 (a) though undoubtedly the Division Bench of this Court in National
                 Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. supra has held that judicial notice, only of a
                 general increase in rent in the city of Delhi and not of the rates of rent,
                 in the absence of proof thereof can be taken but it cannot be lost sight of
                 that the Courts are for doing justice between the parties and not for, on
                 hyper technicalities, allowing the parties to suffer injustice.

                 (b).    The     property   of    the   respondents/plaintiffs     which     the

appellants/defendants are admittedly in unauthorized occupation of, is
situated in one of the poshest colonies of the city of Delhi, properties
wherein fetch high rentals and which only the elite, affluent, expats and
foreigners are able to afford.

(c) the said property is a independent bungalow constructed over 400 sq.
yd. of land and comprising of two and a half floors.

(d) the calculation of mesne profits always involves some amount of
guess work, as held by this court in International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Saraswati
Industrial Sundictes Ltd.
(1992) 2 RCR 6, M.R. Sahni Vs. Doris
Randhawa MANU/DE/0352/2008 and reiterated in Consep India Pvt.
Ltd.
supra and applicability of prevalent rents in the city and of which

Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi Page 63 of 66
CS DJ No.1607/17

the Judges manning the Courts and who are born and brought up in the
same city, are generally aware of.

(e) The Division Benches of this court in Vinod Khanna Vs. Bakshi
Sachdev
AIR 1996 Delhi 32 and S.Kumar Vs. G.K. Kathpalia 1991 (1)
RCR 431, taking judicial notice, refused to interfere with the rate of
mesne profits even where the landlord had not led any documentary
evidence.
Notice of such increase has also been taken by the Supreme
Court in Saradamani Kandappan Vs. S. Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC 18.

74. The suit property in the present case comprises of two rooms

located in Sadar Bazaar, which is a busy commercial area of the city.

The defendant has admittedly been using the said premises as a shop

as well and would easily command a rent of atleast Rs. 4000/- per

month, which would be an appropriate figure to award as mesne

profits in the present case. Further, the plaintiff has claimed mesne

profits from 12.05.2016 onwards. However, I find that it would be

appropriate to award mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit

i.e. 29.04.2017, as the plaintiff has not approached the court in a

reasonable time from the date of revocation of the licence i.e.

10.09.2016. The plaintiff is accordingly held entitled to receive

mesne profits of Rs. 4000/- per month from the defendant, from the

Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi Page 64 of 66
CS DJ No.1607/17

date of filing of the suit till the handover of the possession of the suit

property by the defendant, subject to an annual increase by 10% on

the said amount. The issue no.2 is decided accordingly in favour of

the plaintiff.

75. With respect to the issue no.3, the plaintiff did not lead any

evidence with respect to the loss suffered by him on account of

mental agony and harassment. Further no evidence of legal fees/costs

has also been led by him. Accordingly, the issue no.3 is decided

against the plaintiff.

Relief

76. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the plaintiff is held

entitled to a decree for recovery of possession with respect to two

rooms in the suit property, i.e. No. 2075-2076, Basti Peepal Wali,

Sadar Bazaar, Delhi – 110006 as per the site plan Ex. PW-1/9. The

plaintiff is also held entitled to receive mesne profits of Rs. 4000/-

Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi Page 65 of 66
CS DJ No.1607/17

per month (Rupees Four Thousand Only) from the Defendant, from

the date of filing of the suit till the handover of the possession of the

suit property by the defendant, subject to an annual increase by 10%

on the said amount. The costs of the suit are also awarded in favour

of the plaintiff. Let additional court fees be filed as per rules. Decree

sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room

after due compliance.

Digitally signed

by JITEN

                                                      JITEN        MEHRA

                                                      MEHRA        Date:
                                                                   2025.05.20
                                                                   16:01:22 +0530


        Announced in the open Court on                  (JITEN MEHRA)
        20.05.2025.                                      DJ-10 (Central)
                                                     Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.




Lakshman Singh vs. Ahmad Shaid Qureshi                                 Page 66 of 66
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here