Final Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030004642024
CS SCJ/306/2024
In the matter of :
Rambha Devi
w/o Sh. Rajeshwar Sahni,
R/o 14/23, E- Block,
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi 110042.
Also At :
House No. F-77,
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
……..Plaintiff
VERSUS
Ram Samujh
s/o Sh. Tilku
R/o House no. F-77,
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi
……...Defendant
Date of Institution 21.03.2024
Date of reservation of judgment 13.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 13.05.2026
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, EVICTION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case, as per the plaint, are as
follows:
CS SCJ 306/2024 Rambha Devi vs Ram Samujh Page no.1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
(a) The present suit pertains to property bearing House no.
F-77, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi having built up area of 12½ sq
meters. (hereinafter be referred to as suit property). It is averred
in the plaint that defendant sold the suit property to the plaintiff
with his own free will and consent after execution of documents
i.e. GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit, declaration and possession
letter all dated 22.06.2022. Thereafter, plaintiff, upon request of
defendant, allowed defendant to reside at the suit property as
tenant vide rent agreement dated 22.06.2022 for a period of 11
months @ Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the defendant/tenant
paid rent for only three months and stopped payment from
October, 2022. Since then, the defendant/tenant has neither paid
the rent to the plaintiff nor has vacated the suit property despite
expiry of rent agreement dated 22.06.2022. Despite repeated
requests by plaintiff to the defendant to vacate the suit property,
the defendant refused to do the same and instead threatened the
plaintiff to implead her and her family members in false criminal
cases. The plaintiff has filed written complaint against defendant
with SHO PS Shahbad Dairy.
(b) Aggrieved, plaintiff served a legal notice dated 26.09.2023
upon the defendant calling upon him to vacate the suit property
and also to pay the outstanding rent of Rs.1,00,000/- for 10
months with damages of Rs.20,000/- for unauthorized
occupation. The defendant is in unauthorized and illegal
possession/occupation of the suit property and has ill intention to
grab the same. Hence the present suit.
2. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff prays for the
CS SCJ 306/2024 Rambha Devi vs Ram Samujh Page no.2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
following reliefs:
(i) A decree of eviction of the defendant from the suit
property, directing him to handover the peaceful and vacant
physical possession of the suit property.
(ii) A decree of permanent injunction of the suit property
against the defendant directing him not to create any third party
interest in the suit property till final disposal of the suit.
(iii) Costs of the suit.
Proceedings
3. Summons for settlement of issues of the present case were
served upon defendant. However, no one appeared on behalf of
defendant nor any written statement filed within stipulated
period. Consequently, the defence of defendants was struck off
and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.09.2024. The
case, thereafter, was fixed for exparte PE.
Plaintiff evidence
4. To substantiate her case, the plaintiff has examined herself
as PW-1 vide her duly sworn in affidavit in evidence as
Ex.PW1/1 and has relied on the following documents :-
S. No. Particular Exhibit
1. Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell
and purchase, receipt and affidavit,
declaration and possession letter all
dated 22.06.2022
Ex.PW1/A
(colly) (OSR)
2. Copy of rent agreement dated
22.06.2022
Ex.PW1/B
(OSR)
3. Copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW1/C
CS SCJ 306/2024 Rambha Devi vs Ram Samujh Page no.3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
26.09.2023
4. Copy of complaint to the SHO PS
Shahbad Dairy
Mark A
4.1 Plaintiff also examined summoned witness Sh Manoj
Kumar, s/o Sh Ram Nihor and Sh Neerja Kumar Singh s/o Sh
Brahm Dev Singh as PW2 and PW3, respectively. They both
deposed that they were the witnesses to the documents i.e. GPA,
Agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit, undertaking/declaration and
possession letter all dated 22.06.2022 executed by defendant in
favour of plaintiff bearing their signatures at points A and B,
respectively, on all documents.
4.2 As no other witness was examined by plaintiff, the exparte
PE was closed on 16.02.2026. Thereafter, the matter was
proceeded to final arguments.
5. I have heard final arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for
plaintiff as well as perused the record.
Issues for determination
6. The following issues arise for determination:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has acquired valid title to the suit
property so as to maintain the present suit?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff can claim to be the landlord of the
suit property?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
CS SCJ 306/2024 Rambha Devi vs Ram Samujh Page no.4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
Analysis And Findings
7. The foundation of the plaintiff’s case rests on the assertion
that she became the owner of the suit property by virtue of the
documents executed on 22.06.2022, namely the GPA, Agreement
to Sell, Affidavit, Declaration and Possession Letter.
8. It is settled law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, that transactions of sale of
immovable properties through General Power of Attorney,
Agreement to Sell and Will are not legal and valid mode of
transferring title in immovable properties. A GPA does not
confer any title or interest in the property on the power agent and
an agreement to sell only gives a right to the purchaser to file a
suit for specific performance.
In the present case, the documents relied upon, being the
GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, declaration and possession
letter, are wholly insufficient in law to transfer ownership of the
suit property. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to establish
that she is the owner of the suit property and without valid title,
the plaintiff cannot claim to be the landlord of the property.
9. Amusingly, all the documents including the rent agreement
were executed on the same date, namely 22.06.2022. This
simultaneous execution creates a legal impossibility. The
chronology claimed by the plaintiff presents a scenario where on
the morning of 22.06.2022 the defendant is the owner of the
property, on the same day the defendant allegedly transfers the
property through GPA and Agreement to Sell, and on the very
CS SCJ 306/2024 Rambha Devi vs Ram Samujh Page no.5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
same day the defendant allegedly becomes tenant of the plaintiff.
However, as no sale deed was executed, the defendant, as
per settled law, remained the owner of the suit property as no title
transferred to the plaintiff on 22.06.2022. Consequently, as
owner cannot be a tenant of his own property, the purported rent
agreement dated 22.06.2022 is, therefore, void and
unenforceable.
10. It is no gainsay that for a valid landlord-tenant relationship
to exist, the landlord must have legal title or at least a legal right
to let out the property, the tenant must have obtained possession
from the landlord with his consent, there must be an agreement
for payment of rent, and the relationship must be entered into
independently and in good faith.
In the present case, none of these requirements are
satisfied. The plaintiff has no legal title to the suit property as she
has not acquired ownership through a registered sale deed. The
defendant was already in possession as owner and he did not
obtain possession from the plaintiff. The rent agreement is a
sham document executed on the same day as the other
documents, forming part of a single fraudulent transaction. The
relationship was not entered into independently or in good faith,
but was manufactured to create false evidence.
11. In view of the above discussion and applying the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp (supra), it is
held that the plaintiff has not acquired valid title to the suit
property and that the plaintiff is not the landlord of the suit
CS SCJ 306/2024 Rambha Devi vs Ram Samujh Page no.6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
property. No valid landlord-tenant relationship exists between the
plaintiff and defendant.
12. Since the plaintiff has failed to establish that she is the
owner or landlord of the suit property, she is not entitled to any
of the reliefs claimed in the suit.
Conclusion
13. In view of the findings recorded above, the suit is hereby
dismissed. The plaintiff has failed to prove that she acquired
valid title and an owner cannot be a tenant of a non-owner on the
same day when no valid transfer of title has occurred.
14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 13.05.2026.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North, RohiniCourts,Delhi/13.05.2026
CS SCJ 306/2024 Rambha Devi vs Ram Samujh Page no.7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --