Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. GOMATI MANOCHA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA DJ No. 35/2024
CNR No. DLNE01-003548-2024
In the matter of:
Pramod Kumar Pachouri
S/o Sh. Babu Ram
R/o H. No.229-229A, Street No. 6-7,
Bal Niketan Near Gyan Sarover School,
West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. ..…Appellant
Versus
Gaurav Singh
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh
R/o G-235, Gali No. 6,
Bal Niketan Near Gyan Sarover School,
West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. .….Respondent
Date of Institution/registration : 29.11.2024
Date of Final Arguments : 27.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 27.03.2026
Final Decision : Dismissed
Judgment-in-Appeal
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Pramod
Kumar Pachouri against the judgment/decree dated 27.09.2024
passed by the then Ld. ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ, North- East
District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit no. 295/2019
titled as Sh. Gaurav Singh Vs. Sh. Pramod Kumar Pachouri, vide
which the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed.
RCA DJ 35/2024 Pramod Kumar Pachouri Vs. Gaurav Singh Page no. 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
2. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Ld. Trial
Court has overlooked that the plaintiff/respondent has failed to
establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff
and the defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff/respondent was not
the landlord and that the landlord was Mr. Ashok Kumar i.e. father
of the respondent. It is stated that the plaintiff/respondent claimed to
be the joint-owner of the suit property alongwith his brother Sourav
Singh but he has neither filed any documents regarding consent of
his brother nor brought him into the witness-box to prove his
consent to file the present case against the appellant/defendant. It is
further stated that the plaintiff/respondent has not proved his title
qua the suit property and has only filed notarized GPA, etc. which
do not prove title. It is also stated that the plaintiff could not prove
the rate of rent at Rs. 3,500/- per month. In fact, the rent was Rs.
1,000/- plus Rs. 200/- as water and electricity charges. Thus, the suit
property was governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is also
stated that as per the cross-examination of PW2 Ashok Singh, he
was receiving the rent from the appellant. It is stated that also as per
the cross-examination of PW1 Sh. Gaurav Singh, he has not filed
previous chain of documents of ownership of the suit property. In
these circumstances, it is prayed that the judgment/decree dated
27.09.2024, be set aside.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has not filed reply to the
appeal and has chosen to argue straightaway. He has stated that the
appellant/defendant has admitted that he was tenant in the suit
RCA DJ 35/2024 Pramod Kumar Pachouri Vs. Gaurav Singh Page no. 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
property. It is stated that the respondent and not his father is the
owner of the suit property. It is further averred that the respondent is
the landlord who had let out the property to the appellant. Further, it
is argued that ownership of the property cannot be challenged by the
tenant. It is stated that the appellant had disobeyed the order dated
28.10.2022, passed by the Ld. Trial Court under Order 15-A of the
Code of Civil Procedure, vide which the appellant was directed to
deposit the rent. Since, he has failed to deposit the same, his defence
was struck off. Since, he has not complied with the order of the
Court therefore, his arguments on appeal should not be heard. It is
stated that earlier a petition under DRC Act was filed and it was
observed that the suit property does not fall in an urbanized village
and hence, the petitioner under the Delhi Rent Control Act was
dismissed. It is also stated that any one of the joint-owners can
institute a suit for eviction. Further, it has also been deposed by Sh.
Ashok Kumar Singh/PW2 that the property belongs to his sons. The
father of the respondent namely Ashok Kumar used to manage the
property and in that capacity, he had collected rent. It has also been
argued that the appellant has admitted that he had paid rent lastly in
November 2013. Therefore, he has been in default of payment of
rent for about 13 years. It is further stated that the appellant has
already vacated the premises but he has locked the premises and is
not handing over the keys to the respondent. It has been prayed that
the appeal be dismissed.
4. Impugned judgment and the entire Trial Court Record has
been perused.
RCA DJ 35/2024 Pramod Kumar Pachouri Vs. Gaurav Singh Page no. 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the joint owner of the
property bearing no. G-229-229A, Gali No. 6-7, Bal Niketan, Near
Gyan Sarovar School, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi alongwith his
brother namely Sourav Singh. It is stated that the suit property was
purchased vide GPA dated 08.12.2005 and in the month of May-
June, 2012, the property in question was let out to the defendant.
Firstly, the defendant has challenged the landlord-tenant
relationship with the plaintiff stating that the father of the plaintiff
was the landlord. It has also been stated that the present suit has
been filed allegedly by one co-owner without taking consent of the
other co-owner namely Sourav Singh.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shriram Pasricha Vs.
Jagannath 1976 AIR 2335 as well as in Kanta Goel Vs. B.P.
Pathak 1977 AIR 1599, has clearly held that a co-owner owns every
part of the composite property along with others and it cannot he
said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the
property. Therefore, one co-owner can maintain a suit for eviction
against the tenant and the consent of other co-owners is not
necessary unless there is a dispute among co-owners opposing the
eviction. It has also been held in M/s. India Umbrella
Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla, AIR 2004
SUPREME COURT 1321 that one co-owner filing a suit for
eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own
right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of co-
owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-
owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed
RCA DJ 35/2024 Pramod Kumar Pachouri Vs. Gaurav Singh Page no. 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
in spite of their disagreement.
However, in this case, the tenant/appellant has not raised the
plea regarding any such dispute or disagreement. Non-joinder of the
brother (co-owner) is not fatal to the case. He was at best a proper
party and not a necessary party.
In this case, defendant/appellant has admitted that he was
tenant in the suit property. However, he has disputed the ownership
of the plaintiff and his brother over the suit property stating that
GPA does not confer the right of ownership. As per section 116 of
the Indian Evidence Act, a tenant is estopped from denying the title
of the landlord. Even if the plaintiff does not prove his ownership
over the suit property still he can succeed as a landlord. It is enough
to show that he has a better right to possession than the tenant. A
GPA does not confer title or ownership but it can certainly be used
as an evidence of possessory rights sufficient to support the claim
as a landlord. In this case, though the tenant has stated that the
father of the respondent was the landlord, however, the father
namely Ashok Kumar, who has deposed as PW2 has categorically
stated that the property in question was purchased by his sons
Gaurav Singh and Sourav Singh from attorney holder of previous
owner Raj Kumar. He has also deposed that the suit property was let
out by his son to the defendant on oral tenancy. He has gone further
to say that he had received rent from the defendant on one or two
occasions on behalf of his sons. He has also deposed that he is not
the owner of the suit property nor the same was let out by him to the
defendant. In his cross-examination, on being asked that the rent
amount of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith electricity and water charges of Rs.
RCA DJ 35/2024 Pramod Kumar Pachouri Vs. Gaurav Singh Page no. 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
200/- were collected by him from the defendant, he stated that the
defendant used to come and give the rent amount at his residence.
He specifically denied that he was the landlord of the tenanted
premises or that he used to take the rent. Since, it was an oral
tenancy therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the
conduct of the parties as well as their statements before the Court
are crucial to determine the outcome of the case. Here, the
defendant/appellant has stated that father of the plaintiff was the
landlord. This plea of the tenant has been rejected by the
father/PW2. He has stated that the plaintiff is the landlord and that
he was collecting rent on his behalf. The tenant cannot challenge
this inter-se arrangement between the father and the son. The
father/PW2 has confirmed the plaintiff’s status as the landlord.
Further, the defendant has not even brought an iota of evidence to
prove that he is the tenant of Ashok Kumar. Also, from the cross-
examination of PW2, it could not be established that Ashok
Kumar/PW2 was the landlord of the defendant. Thus, this plea of
the defendant/appellant also fails.
Furthermore, it has been alleged by the defendant/appellant
that as the rate of rent was Rs. 1,000/- plus water and electricity
charges of Rs. 200/- therefore, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control
Act would be applicable. However, the plaintiff has stated that
earlier the suit was filed by him against the defendant under the
Delhi Rent Control Act which was dismissed vide judgment/order
dated 19.03.2019. In the said petition, the Additional Rent
Controller had called for a report from the concerned SDM and as
per the report filed by the SDM, Karawal Nagar, the Village
RCA DJ 35/2024 Pramod Kumar Pachouri Vs. Gaurav Singh Page no. 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
Karawal Nagar area is a rural area, therefore provisions of DRC Act
are not applicable and hence, the petition filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff Gaurav Singh under section 14 (i) (e) read with
section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was dismissed. In these
circumstances, it can safely be held that this plea also taken by the
appellant holds no merit.
6. In view of the aforesaid and as this Court finds no infirmity in
the order of the Ld. Trial Court, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
7. TCR be sent back with the copy of this judgment.
8. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room.
(Gomati Manocha)
District Judge-02 (North East District)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Dictated and announced in open Court
today i.e. 27th March, 2026
RCA DJ 35/2024 Pramod Kumar Pachouri Vs. Gaurav Singh Page no. 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --