Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK BENIWAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
RC/ARC No.:- 23/2024
CNR No.:- DLET03-000249-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Smt. Rani Bala
W/o Late Rawel Shah,
R/o HIG-612,
Jamalpur Colony, Frokal Point,
Ludhiana, Punjab- 141010
….......Petitioner
Versus
Hari Ram
R/o- Room No.07, Top Floor,
A-60/3, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi- 110096
….......Respondent
Order on application filed by the respondent under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose the present application under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the respondent.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the property (Entire Fourth Floor
i.e. roof of third floor), part of property bearing no.A-60/3, out of
khasra no.399/265, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096, by virtue of
registered Gift Deed Vide Registration no.536 in Book No.1 Vol.
No.10112 on page 51 to 58 on 08.02.2022 at Sub-Registrar VI, Delhi.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had got the
property from previous owner who had rented this property to
respondent that by virtue of this gift deed, the petitioner has became
RC ARC: 23/2024 Rani Bala Vs. Hari Ram 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
the absolute owner of property and this respondent is duty bound to
provide the rent to the petitioner. Also initially after transfer the said
property in the name of petitioner, the respondent started to pay the
rent to the petitioner. But from Feb 2023, the respondent stopped to
pay the rent to the petitioner, when the respondent
defaulted/discontinued to pay the rent to the petitioner despite many
requests, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent for
paying the arrear of rent and handover the vacant possession of the
tenanted premises.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent have found that the
petitioner who are the subsequent owner of this property to be very
old and aged and the respondent have realized that this old age
petitioner are living at distance which is Ludhiana, Punjab and they
can be cheated very easily. The respondent were paying the rent to the
petitioner but suddenly they stopped to pay the rent from February,
2023. A legal notice dated 24.03.2023 was also served to the
Respondent through Speed post, but despite the same they have not
paid the rent till date.
5. The tenancy of the respondent, in respect of the tenanted
premises, stood terminated by virtue of the above-mentioned legal
demand notice dated 24.03.2023, however, still the respondent is
occupying the same, as unlawful and unauthorized occupant therein.
6. The petitioner is the owner of property bearing no. owner of the
property (Entire Fourth Floor), part of property bearing no.A-60/3, out
of Khasra No.399/265, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096, and when
petitioner asked to the respondent to evict the suit premises and entire
RC ARC: 23/2024 Rani Bala Vs. Hari Ram 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
rent amount be paid to the petitioner but the respondent denied to pay
single penny of rent or handover the physical possession of the suit
premises to the Petitioner.
7. In the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is submitted
by the respondent that that the petitioner is not the owner of the
property in question and she wants to extort money/rent of the
property in question by blackmailing him by filing the present
petition.
8. That Smt. Chander Mohini W/o Late Sh. Jasbir Lal R/o A-60/3,
New Ashok Nagar, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi- 110096 is the sole and
absolute owner of the property in question and who had inducted the
respondent as tenant in the property in question and since then he is
paying the rent to Smt. Chander Mohini.
9. The respondent does not know the petitioner in any manner. The
respondent became very much shocked and surprised when he
received the notice of this Hon’ble Court regarding the said case
whereas the landlady of the property in question is residing in the said
house. After receipt of the said notice of this Hon’ble court, the
respondent immediately contacted to Smt. Chander Mohini and
enquired about the said matter, on this, Smt. Chander Mohini clearly
apprised that Rani Bala is her sister-in-law and she had played fraud
with Smt. Chander Mohini in collusion with her brother namely,
Gulab Shah and they both with their children namely Deepak and
Vikram took Smt. Chander Mohini to the Sub-Registrar Office on the
pretext to execute a Will Deed in favour of the children of Smt.
Chander Mohini.
RC ARC: 23/2024 Rani Bala Vs. Hari Ram 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
10. After reaching at the Sub-Registrar Office, Gulab Shah and
Rani Bala got prepared some documents in English Language and got
the signature of Smt. Chander Mohini on those documents. Smt.
Chander Mohini signed the said documents keeping faith on Gulab
Shah and Rani Bala that they are her brother and bhabhi and they will
not make any forgery with her but they both cheat Smt. Chander
Mohini and fraudulently got executed the Gift Deed as alleged in their
favour and they took advantage of illiteracy of Smt. Chander Mohini
with their ill motive to usurp the property of Smt. Chander Mohini by
virtue of the alleged gift deed, whereas Smt.Chander Mohini neither
executed any gift deed in favour of the petitioner nor transferred the
property in question in their favour.
11. In regard of the said fraud committed by the petitioner, Smt.
Chander Mohini had filed a case for declaration/cancellation of
alleged gift deed, permanent and mandatory injunction against the
petitioner and her brother Gulab Shah vide suit no.CS-680/2022 titled
as Chander Mohini Vs. Bala Rani & Anr. which is pending in the
Court of Sh. Sanatan Prasad, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Smt.
Chander Mohini also had filed a complaint case u/S 200 Cr.P.C.
alongwith application u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and her
brother Gulab Shah titled as CT-1126/2023 Chander Mohini Vs. Bala
Rani & Anr. which is pending in the Court of Sh. Mayank Goyal, Ld.
CMM, East, KKD.
12. The petitioner was/is neither the owner of the tenanted portion
of the respondent nor taken any part from the respondent nor taken
any rent from the respondent at any point of time. The respondent is
paying the rent of his tenanted premises to Smt. Chander Mohini since
RC ARC: 23/2024 Rani Bala Vs. Hari Ram 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
the day of his induction as a tenant and Smt. Chander Mohini is the
real owner of the property in question.
13. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in T.
Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “where the plaint is manifestly vexatious and
meritless, the court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11
CPC at the threshold itself to prevent abuse of process”. The petitioner
has improperly combined the two in a single suit without compliance
with the mandatory procedural requirements. petitioner seeks
injunction and declaration concerning amounts exceeding
Rs.5,00,000/-, yet has deliberately undervalued the relief and affixed
only nominal court fee. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that
in the matter of Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad (1973) 2 SCC
524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that undervaluation of relief to
evade court fee is a ground for rejection of plaint.
14. The file is carefully gone through. Case laws referred by the
respondent is perused. In Saleem Bhai and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others [2003 (1) SCC 557] it was held with
reference to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code that the relevant facts
which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder
are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power
at any stage of the suit – before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the respondent at any time before the conclusion of the
trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under Clauses (a)
and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint
are germane and the pleas taken by the respondent in the written
statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
RC ARC: 23/2024 Rani Bala Vs. Hari Ram 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
15. In Maharaji Educational Trust & Anr. Vs. Punjab & Sind
Bank & Anr. 127 (2006) Delhi Law Times 161, it was held by
Hon'ble High Court :
"It is a settled principle of law that in order to take up the
pleas under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code, the
party concerned has to essentially take the averments
made in the plaint as correct. Such a plea being the plea
of demurrer the respondents cannot take advantage of the
averments made in the written statement or the factual
narration to show that averments made in the plaint are
incorrect. The court would take into consideration the
plaint as a whole and the documents placed by the
petitioners on record, in order to examine such pleas. This
principle of law is no more res integra and has been
settled by various judgments of the court. In this regard,
reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the
case of New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Raja
Industrial Works and Ors. (IA 6689/2005 in CS(OS)
501/2004) decided on 8th September, 2005 :-
“It is further a settled canon of civil jurisprudence that the
court while considering an application under Order 7
Rule 11 of the CPC has to assume that the facts averred in
the plaint are primarily correct particularly when such
averments are supported by the documents in the case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of
ABN-Amre Bank v. the Punjab Urban Planning and
RC ARC: 23/2024 Rani Bala Vs. Hari Ram 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
Development Authority 1993(3) PLR 479, where the
court held as under:-
“It is a settled rule of law that the plea of rejection of
plaint is founded on the "PLEA OF DEMURRER". A
person raising such plea in law has to take the facts as
stated by the opponent as correct. Despite tentative
admission of such correctness, the plaint does not
disclose a complete or even partial cause of action or the
relief claimed is barred by law and thus, the plaint is
liable to be rejected within the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plain language of
this rule shows that for determination of an application
under this provision, the Court has to look into the plaint.
This concept has been extended by judicial
pronouncement of various courts so as to take within its
ambit even the documents filed by the petitioner Along
with plaint or subsequent thereto but prior to the hearing
of such application.”
16. In Sangeeta Garg vs. Deepak Bansal & Anr. 155 (2008) Delhi
Law Times 173 (DB), it was held by Hon’ble High Court :
“It is well settled law that rejection of the plaint is a
serious matter as it takes away the very basis of the suit
rendering as if there was no suit at all or that no suit was
instituted. Bare allegations made in the plaint and
documents filed therewith are required to be looked into
to determine whether the plaint discloses the cause of
action. It is also well settled law that the pleas taken by
RC ARC: 23/2024 Rani Bala Vs. Hari Ram 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
the respondents in the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage. The correctness of allegations
made in the plaint or otherwise is not to be considered at
the stage of consideration of question as to whether the
plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on
the ground that it does not disclose cause of action. The
power to reject a plaint under this clause must be
exercised only if the court comes to the conclusion that
even if at all the allegations are proved the petitioner
would not be entitled to any relief whatever. So long as
the plaint discloses some cause of action or raises some
question fit to be decided by the Court, mere fact that the
case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for
striking it out.”
17. The present case has been filed by the petitioner u/S 14(1)(A) of
DRC Act for the eviction. The perusal of the plaint establishes that the
petitioner does have a cause of action against the respondent and I am
not of the opinion that the plaint is devoid of any cause of action.
Hence, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is
dismissed.
Vivek Beniwal
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
05.05.2026
RC ARC: 23/2024 Rani Bala Vs. Hari Ram 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --