2018 (2) TMI 1417 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery of possession and damages - Since the defendant failed to vacate the suit property, therefore, the present suit for possession and damages came to be filed - whether a disputed question of fact arises that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property? - Held that - the suit property falls as one of the properties at Serial no. 1(a) of the Schedule II of the Scheme of Arrangement approved vide order 3.1.1983 by this Court. Therefore, in my opinion, once there is finality to the order of this Court dated 3.1.1983 accompanied by the Scheme of Arrangement, and existence of which is not denied and could not be denied by the defendant, plaintiff has to be held to be the owner of the suit property. Defendant has contended that it is not the plaintiff but one M/s Birla Textile Mills a partnership firm which is the owner of the suit property, however law is well settled that vague pleadings do not constitute sufficient pleadings. The defendant is a legally well-versed person. Defendant wants to cross all limits of dishonesty because the defendant wants to most illegally and dishonestly continue in possession of the suit premises although the defendant has no legal right to the same. Defendant being a legal person has endeavoured his best to create legal and factual defences as per the written statement, however surely law is that much substantive that a dishonest defendant should not be allowed to succeed on illegal grounds, and therefore, it is ordered that this application is allowed. Decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit property.
2. Defendant's claim of tenancy and protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. Proper valuation of the suit for jurisdiction purposes.
4. Concurrent remedies under Section 630 of the Companies Act and the civil suit.
5. Costs and penalties for dishonest defenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Suit Property:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property based on a Scheme of Arrangement approved by the Delhi High Court on 3.1.1983 in CP No. 59/1982. The court confirmed that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises, as the order and Scheme of Arrangement are final and binding. The defendant's vague claim that the property belonged to M/s Birla Textile Mills was dismissed due to lack of specific pleadings and documents, as required under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. Defendant's Claim of Tenancy and Protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The defendant contended that he was a tenant paying ?100 per month and thus protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, the court noted the letter dated 1.5.2004, which established the defendant as a licensee, not a tenant. The termination of the license was valid as per the letter dated 23.12.2016. Even if the defendant were considered a tenant, his denial of the plaintiff's ownership would terminate the tenancy under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as upheld in Naeem Ahmed vs. Yash Pal Malhotra.

3. Proper Valuation of the Suit for Jurisdiction Purposes:
The defendant argued that the suit was overvalued to ?2 crores instead of the correct valuation of ?78,75,000. The court dismissed this technical defense, stating that it should not prevent the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC from being allowed. The court exercised its power under Section 24 CPC and Article 227 of the Constitution to continue the suit in its jurisdiction.

4. Concurrent Remedies under Section 630 of the Companies Act and the Civil Suit:
The defendant claimed that the suit was barred due to the plaintiff's proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act. The court rejected this argument, stating that multiple remedies could exist for one cause of action. The criminal complaint under Section 630 did not preclude the civil suit for possession.

5. Costs and Penalties for Dishonest Defenses:
The court noted the defendant's legal background and his attempt to misuse legal processes. Consequently, the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was allowed, and a decree for possession was passed in favor of the plaintiff. The court imposed costs of ?2 lacs on the defendant for raising dishonest and frivolous defenses. Additionally, the court directed the Registrar General to file a criminal complaint against the defendant under Section 209 of the IPC for filing false defenses.

Compromise Order:
The defendant agreed to vacate the suit premises by 31.12.2018, failing which he would pay ?30,000 per month as mesne profits from 1.1.2018 until possession was handed over. The defendant and his wife were to file affidavits of undertaking within one week. The suit was disposed of in terms of this compromise order.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, confirming their ownership and right to possession of the suit property. The defendant's claims were dismissed, and penalties were imposed for dishonest defenses. The suit was resolved through a compromise, with specific conditions for vacating the property and potential financial liabilities for non-compliance.

← Previous Next →