SHRI RAMESH AHUJA V. SHRI RAM NATH JAIN, 158 (2009) DLT 347
FACTS
Learned Counsel for petitioners contended that respondent/landlord is not the owner of premises in question and sale deed relied upon by respondent is a forged and fabricated document. He further stated that ARC had wrongly concluded that respondent was owner of property in question on the basis of a judgment rendered by a Judge of Small Causes Court. He submitted that said judgment cannot be relied upon to conclude the ownership issue as a Court of Small Causes has limited jurisdiction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Present civil revision petition has been filed by petitioners/tenants under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking to set aside order passed by Additional Rent Controller in whereby petitioners' leave to defend application has been dismissed and an eviction order in favour of respondent/landlord has been passed.
ISSUE
Whether the sale deed was forged?
JUDGEMENT
The court observed, regarding ownership of the plaintiff he has proved on record sale deed. A bare perusal of these sale deeds shows that Heera Lal the previous owner, sold the property to Sh. Ram Kumar and others who in turn later on sold the same to the plaintiff. Copies of mutation placed on record and proved further show that first property was mutated in the name of Ram Kumar and therein the name of the plaintiff. In my opinion this is sufficient proof of ownership.
In his deposition the defendant's son himself stated that if rightful owner claims the rent the defendant is willing to pay the same. Since there is no dispute regarding rate of rent and the period and it stands proved on record that the plaintiff is the rightful owner to recover the rent, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the same.
Moreover, on a perusal of judgment of Court of Small Causes, it is apparent that the same dispute with regard to ownership of tenanted premises was raised in the said proceedings, as is being sought to be done in the present case, and further that finding of Court of Small Causes was in fact a finding of fact and not of law.
It is pertinent to mention that petitioner no. 1 had deposed as a witness in support of his mother -who was the defendant before Court of Small Causes. It is rather unfortunate that judgment of Court of Small Causes was not disclosed by petitioners in their leave to defend application. Consequently, petitioners' conduct of making incomplete disclosure is deprecated and present petition along with application are dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/-to be paid to Prime Minister Relief Fund within a period of six weeks from today.