SHANTI DEVI Vs. SARWAN KUMAR
LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-227
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 25,2007

SUMITRA DEVI,ASHOK KUMAR,VINOD KUMAR,MANOJ KUMAR,KUMARI TARA,SAVITA,NANDA KUMARI @ CHANDA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
SARWAN KUMAR,SUBHASH SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.M.MALIK, J. - (1.) The only question which falls for consideration is whether the relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the appellants and the respondents. Both the Courts below have returned the finding in favour of landlord/respondents. Case of the respondents/plaintiffs is this. Property no. 46/2-C/1 East Azad Nagar, near Krishna Nagar, Delhi was owned by their late father Chiranji Lal and his brother Subhash Sharma. After the demise/death of Chiranji Lal all other legal representatives had relinquished their rights, title or interest in favour of respondents. In June 1986 the appellants were inducted as tenants. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from carrying out additions and alterations in the suit property.
(2.) The appellants in their written statement alleged that the respondents had no locus standi to file the present suit. Relationship of landlords and tenants between the parties was called into question.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the respondents do not become the landlords/owners of the case property by virtue of relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/4. He explained that the case of the respondents is this that their predecessor in interest had become the owner of the property by virtue of a sale deed. It was submitted that the sale deed which is the best evidence was withheld for the reasons best known to the respondents. He pointed out that position does not begin to jell in the absence of sale deed. He explained that the courts below have wrongly placed reliance on the MCD record and inspection form Ex. PW2/1.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.