Bhupinder Jit Singh v. Sonu Kumar

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 12, 2017 bs

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12th October, 2017. + BHUPINDER JIT SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Mr. Yogesh Mittal and Mr. Hasib-ur-Rehman, Advs. Versus SONU KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order [dated 1st April, 2017 in Civil Suit No.7970/2016 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for a decree for possession forthwith. 2. The petition was entertained for the detailed reasons given in order dated 9th August, 2017, vide which notice thereof was ordered to be issued to the respondent/defendant. 3. The counsels have been heard. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this petition arises, pleading (i) that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of property No.114, Sunder Park, Shastri Nagar, Village Khureji Khas, Shahdara, Delhi purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 16th July, 2013 from the respondent/defendant; (ii) that subsequently the respondent/defendant wanted to be inducted as a lessee in the said property and the petitioner/plaintiff acceded to the request and a registered lease deed dated 18th July, 2013 was executed between the parties whereunder the petitioner/plaintiff let out the said property to the respondent/defendant at a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of eleven months commencing from 11th July, 2013 and on other terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed; (iii) that the respondent/defendant did not pay rent since January, 2014 and also did not vacate the property; (iv) that the lease of the respondent/defendant expired by efflux of time on 10th June, 2014 and possession of the respondent/defendant thereafter is unauthorised; (v) that the petitioner/plaintiff also got issued and served a legal notice dated 9th May, 2014 on the respondent/defendant; (vi) hence the suit for ejectment of the respondent/defendant from the property and for recovery of arrears of rent/mesne profits, future mesne profits and permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the property. 5. The respondent/defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement inter alia pleading (a) that in the month of April, 2012, the respondent/defendant was in dire need of money and through a friend, was brought in contact with one Sunil Gora and on the said Sunil Gora asking for security for the loan, informed the said Sunil Gora that the respondent/defendant has undivided share in the property aforesaid along with his brothers, sisters and mother; (b) that in May, 2012, Sunil Gora made the respondent/defendant and his mother sign some documents and also took the respondent/defendant and his mother to the Office of Sub-Registrar, Geeta Colony, Delhi where the signed documents were presented and photographs taken of the respondent/defendant and his mother; (c) Sunil Gora assured the respondent/defendant that he will take back the registered documents from the Office of Sub-Registrar for further processing of loan and when the loan is approved by the Bank, he would inform the respondent/defendant; (d) however the said Sunil Gora inspite of repeated contacts by the respondent/defendant neither arranged for the loan nor returned the documents; (e) that on the contrary, Sunil Gora also took six signed cheques from the respondent/defendant and again called the respondent/defendant to sign some documents on 12th July, 2013 at the Office of Sub-Registrar, Geeta Colony, Delhi where the respondent/defendant was again made to sign some papers and one Bhupinder Jit Singh introduced by Sunil Gora gave a cheque for Rs.8 lakhs to the respondent/defendant which was