IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO.

OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. ASHA ARORA & ANOTHER

...APPELLANTS

VERSUS
SHRI D.S. SODHI

...RESPONDENT
INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS
1.

Court Fee.

2.

Urgent Application.

3.

Notice of Motion.

4.

Memo of Parties.

5.

Opening Sheet.

6.

Memo of Appeal along with Affidavit.

7.

Annexure A-1
Certified copy of the impugned judgment
and decree dated 08.11.2013.

8.

Annexure A-2
Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
05.06.1996.

9.

Annexure A-3
Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
05.06.1996.

10.

Annexure-A-4
Certified copy of the Perpetual Lease Deed
dated 14.11.1968.

11.

Annexure A-5
Certified copy of the Conveyance Deed
dated 07.10.1994.

PAGE NO.

12.

Annexure-A-6
Certified copy of the Lease Deed dated
01.10.1980.

13.

Annexure A-7
Certified copy of the legal notice dated
22.01.2002.

14.

Annexure A-8
Certified copy of the reply dated 06.02.2002
to the legal notice.

15.

Annexure A-9
Certified copy of the rejoinder dated
08.04.2002 to the reply notice dated
06.02.2002.

16.

Annexure A-10
Certified copy of the Agreement to Sell
dated 24.01.1989.

17.

Annexure A-11
Certified copy of the plaint in the suit
No.301/11/02.

18.

Annexure A-12
Certified copy of the written statement filed
by Smt. Vathsala Chandroo.

19.

Annexure A-13
Certified copy of the replication filed by the
respondent to the written statement of Mrs.
Vathsala Chandroo in suit no.301/11/02.

20.

Annexure A-14
Certified copy of the written statement of the
Appellants.

21.

Annexure A-15
True copy of the plaint of the Appellants.

22.

Annexure A-16
True copy of the written statement.

23.

Annexure A-17
True copy of the order dated 27.10.2006.

24.

Annexure A-18
Certified copy of evidence (examination in
chief and cross examination) of PW-1 Shri
D.S. Sodhi.

25.

Annexure A-19
Certified copy of evidence (examination in
chief and cross examination) of PW-2 Shri
S.K. Govil.

26.

Annexure A-20
Certified copy of evidence (examination in
chief and cross examination) of PW-3 Shri Raj
Kumar Garg.

27.

Annexure A-21
Certified copy of evidence (examination in
chief and cross examination) of PW-4 Shri
Devak Ram.

28.

Annexure A-22
Certified copy of evidence (examination in
chief and cross examination) of D1DW Smt.
Vathsala Chandroo.

29.

Annexure A-23
Certified copy of evidence (examination in
chief and cross examination) of D1W2 Head
Constable Kishan Chand.

30.

Annexure A-24
Certified copy of evidence (examination in
chief and cross examination) of D1W3 Shri
V.C. Mishra.

31.

Annexure A-25
Certified copy of evidence (examination in
chief and cross examination) of D2W1 Shri
Homender Arora.

32.

Annexure A-26
Certified copy of the judgment and decree
dated 27.07.2013 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court in suit no.295/11/02.

33.

Annexure A-27
True copy of the order dated 10.10.2013
passed in RFA No.482/2013.

34.

Annexure A-28
Certified copy of the Agreement dated
14.02.1984.

35.

Annexure A-29
Certified copy of the Special Power of
Attorney dated 14.02.1984.

36.

Annexure A-30
Certified copy of the Agreement dated
08.11.1968.

37.

Annexure A-31
Certified copy of the Site Plan.

38.

Annexure A-32
Certified copy of the GPA in favour of Sh.
Yog Raj Arora.

39.

Annexure A-33
Certified copy of the GPA in favour of Sh.
Homender Arora.

40.

Annexure A-34
Certified copy of the General Power of
Attorney in favour of Sh. Rajiv Manchanda.

41.

Annexure A-35
Certified copy of the SPA in favour of Sh.
Dinesh K. Maniam.

42.

Vakalatnama.

APPELLANTS
NEW DELHI
DATED:

THROUGH
(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS
A-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014
MOB: 9810236228
ngequity@gmail.com

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO.

OF 2013

MEMO OF PARTIES
1.

SMT. ASHA ARORA

W/O SHRI YOG RAJ ARORA
R/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,
NEW DELHI

2.

SHRI HOMENDER ARORA

S/O LATE SHRI ATMA PRAKASH
R/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,
NEW DELHI

APPELLANTS

VERSUS
SHRI D.S. SODHI
S/O SHRI K.S. SODHI
R/O B-4/6, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110067

...RESPONDENT

APPELLANTS
NEW DELHI
DATED:

THROUGH

(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS
A-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014
MOB: 9810236228
ngequity@gmail.com
(APPEAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS UNDER
SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMNET &
DECREE DATED 08.11.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SHRI
RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-5,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN C.S.
NO.295/2011/2006 WHEREBY SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS FOR
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY AND
MESNE PROFITS HAS BEEN DISMISSED)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO.

OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

1.

SMT. ASHA ARORA

W/O SHRI YOG RAJ ARORA
R/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,
NEW DELHI

2.

SHRI HOMENDER ARORA

S/O LATE SHRI ATMA PRAKASH
R/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,
NEW DELHI

APPELLANTS

VERSUS
SHRI D.S. SODHI
S/O SHRI K.S. SODHI
R/O B-4/6, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110067

...RESPONDENT

APPEAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMNET & DECREE DATED 08.11.2013
PASSED BY THE COURT OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-5, CENTRAL
DISTRICT,

TIS HAZARI

NO.295/2011/2006

COURTS,

WHEREBY

DELHI

SUIT

IN

OF

C.S.
THE

APPELLANTS FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF

IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY AND MESNE PROFITS HAS
BEEN DISMISSED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

I.

That by means of the present appeal, appellants wish to

challenge the impugned Judgment and decree dated
08.11.2013 passed by the Ld. Court of Shri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, Additional District Judge-5, Central District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.S. No.295/2011/2006, whereby the
Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the suit of the
appellants for possession of immoveable property. A
certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree dated
08.11.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
A-1.

By means of the impugned judgment and decree the

Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the
tenancy of the respondent/tenant has not been validly
terminated by the appellants and as such the appellants are
not entitled for decree of possession in the present suit. The
appellants submit that the said finding of the Ld. Trial Court
is totally bad and illegal on the facts of the case and in view
of the settled proposition of law.

II.

That the brief facts giving rising to the filing of the present
appeal are as under:-

BRIEF FACTS

1. That the appellants herein are owner of the property and

premises bearing Municipal No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi, having purchased the same from the erstwhile
owner Smt. Vathsala Chandroo by means of two Sale
Deeds dated 05.06.1996 (Ex. D2W1/3 and Ex. D2W1/4)
duly executed and registered in favour of appellant no.1
and 2 respectively. Certified copies of the said Sale
Deeds dated 05.06.1996 are annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-2 and A-3 respectively.

2. That admittedly Smt. Vathsala Chandroo was the owner

of the said property by means of a Perpetual Lease Deed
dated

14.11.1968

(Ex.

PW1/10)

and

subsequent

Conveyance Deed dated 07.10.1994 (Ex. D1W1/4).

certified copy of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated

14.11.1968

is

annexed

herewith

Annexure-A-4,

whereas

Conveyance

Deed

dated

and

marked

certified

copy

07.10.1994

is

of

as
the

annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure A-5.

3. That the respondent herein was a tenant in the Ground

Floor portion of the aforesaid property on the date of the
purchase of the suit property by the appellants. He was

also in unauthorized use and occupation of the First

Floor portion of the said property. However, the
respondent herein in the present proceedings has
claimed himself to be a tenant in respect of the entire
property comprising of Ground Floor, First Floor and a
room /mumty on the terrace i.e. Second Floor. The
respondent has claimed his tenancy in respect of the
aforesaid premises under a written lease deed dated
01.10.1980 (Ex. PW1/2). A certified copy of the said
Lease Deed is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-A-6.

The Ld. Trial Court by means of the impugned

judgment and decree has held that the respondent herein
was not only a tenant in respect of the Ground Floor
portion but was also the tenant in respect of the
remaining portion of the building i.e. the First Floor.

4. That the factum of purchase of the suit property by the

appellants herein was communicated to the respondent
herein in the year 1996 itself and the copies of all the
relevant documents were supplied to the respondent.

5. That the appellants herein also got issued and served

upon the respondent a legal notice dated 22.01.2002

(wrongly typed as 22.01.2001) through their counsel Shri

Amit S. Chadha, Advocate. By means of the said notice

the rent of the premises was sought to be increased from
Rs.1200/- per month to Rs.1320/- per month w.e.f.
01.03.2002 in terms of Section 6A and 8 of the Delhi
Rent Control Act. The said notice was duly proved on
record as Ex.PW1/15. A certified copy of the said notice is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-7.

6. That the respondent on being served with the legal notice

dated 22.01.2002 (Ex.PW1/15) got issued and served
upon the appellants a reply dated 06.02.2002 from his
counsel Shri Sushil Kumar Bhalla, Advocate. The said
reply has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/16.

certified copy of the said reply dated 06.02.2002 is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-8.
In the said reply it was claimed by the Respondent
herein for the first time that he has entered into an
Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989 with the erstwhile
owner Smt. Vathsala Chandroo and that the respondent
herein is not a tenant in the premises nor he is liable to
make the payment of rents rather he claimed himself to
be transferee in possession. It was specifically stated in
the said reply that:-

(vii) That in reply to Para No.7 it is vehemently

denied that my client is tenant and he has any
liability as such.

It is the submissions of the appellants that in the said

reply the respondent herein has set-up a title of the suit
property in himself thereby renouncing the character of
tenant and as such the respondent renounced his
tenancy. Tenancy of the Respondent stood forfeited in
terms of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. That the appellants got issued and served upon the

respondent a rejoinder dated 08.04.2002 through their
counsel Shri Amit S. Chadha, Advocate which rejoinder
was duly proved on record as Ex.PW1/17. A certified copy
of the said rejoinder is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure A-9.

8. That at this stage the respondent herein filed a suit for

Specific Performance against Smt. Vathsala Chandroo in
respect of the alleged Agreement to Sell dated
24.01.1989. In the said suit the respondent also
impleaded the present appellants and further sought a
relief of Declaration to the effect that the Sale Deed
dated 05.06.1996 in favour of the appellants herein be

declared as illegal and invalid. A certified copy of the

alleged

Agreement

to

Sell

dated

24.01.1989

(Ex.PW1/11A) is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure A-10. A certified copy of the plaint in the said

suit being suit no.301/11/02 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-11.

9. That in the said suit Smt. Vathsala Chandroo had filed

her detailed written statement which is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure A-12.

In the said written

statement Smt. Vathsala Chandroo denied the execution

of any Agreement to Sell in favour of the respondent
herein muchless the alleged Agreement to Sell dated
24.01.1989 (Ex.PW1/11A) and also the receipt of any
amount under the alleged Agreement.

10.

That the respondent herein filed his replication in

response to the written statement filed by Smt. Vathsala

Chandroo and maintained that he was not a tenant in the
premises but was a transferee under an Agreement to
Sell. As such even in the said replication the respondent
herein renounced his character of a tenant and his
tenancy as well by setting up a title of the suit property in
himself. Some of the relevant extract of the said

replication are reproduced herein below for the kind

perusal of this Honble Court:-

..the plaintiff was tenant in respect of entire

accommodation on the Ground Floor as well as First
Floor vide Lease Deed dated 01.10.1980. (Para 5 (iii) of
reply to Preliminary Objections)

..the entire suit property was in the tenancy and

possession of the plaintiff and there was no occasion for
the defendant no.1 to enter the same without the
permission of plaintiff (Para 5 (vi) of reply to Preliminary
Objections).
..since the entire property was in possession and
tenancy of the plaintiff, therefore, question of
breaking (Para 5 (viii) of the reply to Preliminary
Objections)

in fact, the entire property in question was earlier

under the tenancy of plaintiff . (Para 13 of the reply to
Preliminary Objections)

A certified copy of the replication filed by the

respondent herein to the written statement of Mrs.
Vathsala Chandroo in suit no.301/11/02 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure A-13.

11.

That the appellants herein also filed their detailed

written statement in the said suit (CS No. 301/11/2002),

thereby bringing all true and correct facts on record. A
certified copy of the said written statement of the
Appellants

is

Annexure A-14.

annexed

herewith

and

marked

as

12.

That the appellants herein filed the present suit for

Possession and Mesne Profits against the respondent

herein on 01.06.2006 on the ground that the respondent
/tenant by setting up a title in himself has renounced his
tenancy and as such the tenancy of the Respondent
stood forfeited in terms of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer
of Property Act. The said suit was registered as suit
no.295/11/06. A true copy of the plaint of the Appellants
in the said suit is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure A-15.
13.

That the respondent herein on being served with the

summons of the present suit (CS No. 295/2011/2006) filed

his written statement, thereby taking all frivolous
objections. The respondent in the said written statement
took a u-turn from his earlier stand and claimed as if he
continues to be a tenant as well as a transferee under
the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989. A true
copy of the said written statement is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure A-16.
14.

That the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to settle issues

on 27.10.2006 in the present suit (CS No. 295/2011/2006).

The three additional issues were also framed on
12.09.2013. All the issues as framed by the Ld. Trial

Court in the present proceedings are reproduced as

under:Issue No.1: Whether the suit is not maintainable because
of the provisions of order 2 rule 2 CPC as
alleged in the preliminary objection no.2 in the
WS? OPD
Issue No.2: Whether the suit is not valued properly as
alleged in the preliminary objection no.6 of the
WS? OPD
Issue No.3: Whether the suit is not maintainable because
the tenancy of the defendant has not been
terminated as per the provisions of Transfer of
Property Act, if not so, its effect? OPD
Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
possession as claimed for? OPP
Issue No.5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne
profits, if so, at what rate and for what period?
OPP
Issue No.6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as claimed for? OPP
Issue No.7: Whether the defendant is entitled to the
protection under section 53A Transfer of
Property Act? OPD
Issue NO.8: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
Issue No.9: Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under
Section 10 CPC? OPD
Issue No.10: Relief

15.

That in suit No.301/11/02 filed by the respondent

herein

for

Specific

Performance

of

the

alleged

Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989 the Ld. Trial Court

was pleased to frame the following issues:-

1. Whether the suit is barred by time under the limitation

Act? OPD
2. Whether the suit is not valued for the purpose of court
fee and jurisdiction Act? OPD
3. Whether the agreement to sell dated 24.1.89 in favour
of the plaint is a forged and fabricated document in
view of preliminary objection no.6 of the WS? OPD
4. Whether the agreement to sell dated 24.1.89 is void
and cannot be enforced in view of the preliminary
objection no.11 of the WS? OPD
5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of cause
of action? OPD
7. Whether the registered Sale Deeds dated 5.6.96 in
favour of defendant no.2 and 3 are illegal and invalid.
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed
executed , signed and duly registered in his favour by
the defendant no.1 allowing the plaintiff to pay the
balance amount of Rs.9 Lacs in favour of defendant
no.1 in respect of property bearing No.B-4/6, Vasant
Vihar, New Delhi? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that
the sale deed dated 05.06.1996 executed by the
defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and 3 is
illegal, invalid and not binding against the plaintiff in
respect of property bearing No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi? OPP

16.

10.

To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?OPP

11.

Relief.

That both the aforesaid suits were consolidated for the

purposes of recording evidence vide order dated

27.10.2006 passed in suit no. 295/2011/2006. A copy of
the said order dated 27.10.2006 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-17.

17.

That in the common evidence recorded before the Ld.

Trial Court, the following witnesses were examined by

the parties:PW-1 Shri D.S. Sodhi (respondent herein)
PW-2 Shri S.K. Govil (witness of the respondent herein)
PW-3 Shri Raj Kumar Garg (witness of the respondent
herein)

PW-4 Shri Devak Ram (witness of the respondent

herein)

D1W1: Smt. Vathsala Chandroo (the defendant no.1 in

suit No.301/11/02)

D1W2: Head Constable Kishan Chand (witness of

defendant no.1 in suit no.301/11/02)

D1W3: Shri V.C. Mishra (witness of defendant no.1 in

suit no.301/11/02)

D2W1: Shri Homender Arora (appellant no.2 herein)

The

evidence

(examination

in

chief

and

cross

examination) of PW-1 Shri D.S. Sodhi is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure A-18.

The

evidence

(examination

in

chief

and

cross

examination) of PW-2 Shri S.K. Govil is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure A-19.

The

evidence

(examination

in

chief

and

cross

examination) of PW-3 Shri Raj Kumar Garg is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure A-20.

The

evidence

(examination

in

chief

and

cross

examination) of PW-4 Shri Devak Ram is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure A-21.

The

evidence

(examination

in

chief

and

cross

examination) of D1DW Smt. Vathsala Chandroo is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-22.

The

evidence

(examination

in

chief

and

cross

examination) of D1W2 Head Constable Kishan Chand is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-23.

The

evidence

(examination

in

chief

and

cross

examination) of D1W3 Shri V.C. Mishra is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure A-24.

The

evidence

(examination

in

chief

and

cross

examination) of D2W1 Shri Homender Arora is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure A-25.

18.

That by means of the impugned judgment and decree

dated 08.11.2013 the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to

dismiss the suit for Possession filed by the appellants
inter-alia holding that the tenancy of the respondent has
not been validly terminated.

19.

That the Ld. Trial Court vide judgment and decree

dated 27.07.2013 was further pleased to dismiss the suit

for specific performance filed by the respondent herein. A
certified copy of the judgment and decree dated
27.07.2013 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in suit
no.295/11/02 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-A-26.

20.

That the parties proved on record several documents

which are listed as under:A. Documents proved by Respondent Mr. D.S. Sodhi.
S.
No.

Exhibit
No.

Description of
document

Annexure
of present
Appeal

1.

PW1/1

Agreement
14.02.1984.

dated

A-28

2.

PW1/2

Lease Deed
01.10.1980.

dated

A-6

3.

PW1/3

Special
Power
of
Attorney
dated
14.02.1984.

A-29

4.

PW1/4

Letter of 1983.

Not filed.

5.

PW1/5

Letter
04.07.1983.

dated

Not filed.

6.

PW1/6

Letter
30.05.1983.

dated

Not filed.

7.

PW1/7

Letter
24.07.1983.

dated

Not filed.

8.

PW1/8

Letter
20.03.1986.

dated

Not filed.

9.

PW1/9

Pronote
01.03.1973.

dated

Not filed.

10.

PW1/10

Perpetual Sub-Lease
Deed.

A-4

11.

PW1/11

Agreement
08.11.1968.

dated

A-30

12.

PW1/11A Agreement to Sell

dated 24.01.1989.

A-10

13.

PW1/12

Telephone Bill.

Not filed.

14.

PW1/13

First Running Bill of

Sh. Raj Kumar Garg.

Not filed.

15.

PW1/14

Bill of Sh. Kanhaiya

Lal Yadav.

Not filed.

16.

PW1/15

Notice
dated
22.01.2002 (wrongly
typed as 22.01.2001).

A-7

17.

PW1/16

Reply
06.02.2002.

dated

A-8

18.

PW1/17

Rejoinder
08.04.2002.

dated

A-9

19.

PW1/18
to 22

Postal Records.

Not filed.

20.

PW4/1

Report of Sh. Devak

Ram.

Not filed.

B. Documents proved by Appellants/purchasers of

the property/ Plaintiff in the suit.

S.
No.

Exhibit
No.

Description of
document

Annexure
of present
Appeal

1.

D2W1/3

Sale Deed dated

05.06.1996 in favour
of Smt. Asha Arora.

A-2

2.

D2W1/4

Sale Deed dated

05.06.1996 in favour
of Sh. Homender
Arora.

A-3

3.

DW1/W3/1 Report of Sh. V.C.

Mishra, Handwriting
Expert.

Not filed.

C. Documents proved by Mrs. Vathsala Chandroo,

the original owner.
S. Exhibit No.
No.

Description of
document

1.

D1W1/1

Site Plan.

2.

D1W1/2=D2W1/1 GPA in favour

of Sh. Yog Raj
Arora.

A-32

3.

D1W1/3

GPA in favour
of
Sh.
Homender
Arora

A-33

4.

D1W1/4=D2W1/2 Conveyance
Deed
dated
07.10.1994.

A-5

5.

D1W1/5

Complaint dated
27.08.1994 to
the police.

Annexure
of present
Appeal
A-31

Not filed.

III.

6.

D1W1/6=DW1/9

Public notice in
the newspaper
The
Pioneer
Edition
dated
04.10.1994.

Not filed.

7.

D1W1/7

General Power
of Attorney in
favour of Sh.
Rajiv
Manchanda.

A-34

8.

DW1/4

Complaint dated
24.04.1989 to
ACP.

Not filed.

9.

DW1/5

Complaint
SHO.

to

Not filed.

10. DW1/6

Complaint
to
SHO,
Vasant
Vihar.

Not filed.

11. DW1/7

SPA in favour of
Sh. Dinesh K.
Maniam.

A-35

That the appellants challenge the legality and validity of the

impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013 inter-alia
on the following grounds:GROUNDS
A. Because the impugned judgment and decree dated
08.11.2013 as passed by the Ld. Trial Court is totally bad
and illegal on the facts of the case and in view of the law
involved and as such the same is liable to be set-aside
by this Honble Court in exercise of its Appellate
Jurisdiction.

B. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in

holding that the appellants have not validly determined
and terminated the tenancy of the respondent herein.
Though the Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated that
filing of the suit in itself is a notice under Section 106 of
Transfer of Property Act and no prior notice is required.
However, still the Ld. Trial Court has held that the
tenancy of the respondent has not been validly
terminated merely on the ground that in the plaint of the
appellants it was stated that the respondent herein was a
tenant in respect of the Ground Floor only and was
unauthorized occupant in respect of the First Floor. Once
it has been held by the Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned
judgment

and

decree

dated

08.11.2013 that

the

respondent was not only a tenant in respect of the

Ground Floor of the suit property but also in respect of
the upper Floor, the Ld. Trial Court ought to have held
that the tenancy of the entire premises stood determined
and terminated by presenting the plaint before the Ld.
Trial Court by the appellants herein (particularly when in
the plaint the possession of the entire property has been
sought for and not merely for the Ground Floor).

C. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in

holding that because the appellant alleged in the plaint
that the respondent was a tenant in respect of the
Ground Floor portion only so the tenancy of the
respondent can be terminated by filing of a plaint only in
respect of the Ground Floor and not in respect of the
First Floor which is held to be under the tenancy of the
respondent.

D. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in

not appreciating that the respondent had set-up his title
not in respect of the ground floor of the property but in
respect of the entire property. Once it has been held that
the respondent herein was a tenant in respect of the
entire property and in view of the fact that the respondent
claimed his ownership in respect of the entire property,
his tenancy stood determined and forfeited in view of
Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act in respect
of his entire tenancy. To held that tenancy only in respect
of Ground Floor stood terminated and not in respect of
the upper floor, is totally erroneous in law.

E. Because the Ld. Trial Court ought to have considered

that the notice of termination of tenancy is to be
construed liberally and not strictly. In the plaint of the

present proceedings (which has been treated to be a notice

of termination), the Appellants have sought possession

not only for ground floor but also for the first floor. A clear
demand of vacant physical possession of the entire
property has been made in the said plaint which
demonstrates the intention of the Plaintiffs/ Appellants
herein and which intention stood communicated to the
Respondent. All the requirements of law stood complied
with when the Respondent became aware of this
intention of the Appellants that the possession of the
entire property in question has been sought for.

F. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in

making minute scrutiny of the plaint and to hold that the
tenancy of the Respondent in respect of the ground floor
only stood determined and terminated. The Ld. Trial
Court ought to have held that the tenancy in respect of
the entire property stood determined and terminated.

G. Because there are other numerous grounds considering

which the impugned judgment and decree dated
08.11.2013 is liable to be set-aside. The appellants
reserve their right to urge all such grounds at the time of
oral hearing before this Honble Court.

IV.

That the appellants have not filed any other appeal against
the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013
before this Honble Court or before any other Court.

V.

That the annexures annexed to the present appeal are the

true copies of their respective originals.

VI.

That the present appeal is being filed within the period of

limitation and there is no delay on the part of the appellants
in filing the present appeal.

VII.

That there is connected appeal in between the parties being

RFA No.482/2013 titled as Shri D.S. Sodhi Vs. Vathsala
Chandroo & Ors, which is pending disposal before this
Honble Court and is fixed for hearing on 10.12.2013. The
said appeal is arising from the impugned judgment and
decree dated 27.07.2013 which was passed by the Ld. Trial
Court in a suit for Specific Performance (being suit
no.301/2011) filed by the respondent herein against the

predecessor-in-interest of the appellants namely Smt.

Vathsala Chandroo and the appellants herein. By means of
the said judgment and decree dated 27.07.2013 the Ld.
Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit for Specific
Performance of the respondent herein. A true copy of the

order dated 10.10.2013 passed in RFA No.482/2013 is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-27.

PRAYER
In the aforesaid premises, it is most humbly prayed that this
Honble Court may kindly be pleased to:(a)

set aside the impugned Judgment and decree dated

08.11.2013 passed by the Ld. Court of Shri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, Additional District Judge-5, Central District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.S. No.295/2011;

(b)

decree the suit for Possession filed by the appellants herein

against the respondent herein thereby passing a decree of
Possession in respect of the entire property and premises
bearing Municipal No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi110057;

(c)

decree the suit of the appellants for the relief of Mesne

Profits and Permanent Injunction in terms of prayer (b) and
(c) in the plaint of the appellants herein.

(d)

award costs of the proceedings of the present appeal as

well as of the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court in
favour of the appellants; and

(e)

pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

It is prayed accordingly.

APPELLANTS
NEW DELHI
DATED:

THROUGH

(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS
A-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014
MOB: 9810236228
ngequity@gmail.com
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of November, 2013 that the
facts stated in our aforesaid appeal are true and correct to our
knowledge and the legal submissions made in the aforesaid
appeal are true and correct on the basis of the legal information
received and believed to be correct. Last para is prayer to this
Honble Court.

APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO.

OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. ASHA ARORA & ANOTHER

APPELLANTS

VERSUS
SHRI D.S. SODHI

...RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT

I, Asha Arora W/o Shri Yog Raj Arora, aged ___ years, R/o
161-A, Sainik Farms, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:1. That I am the appellant no.1 in the above noted appeal. I am
well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying appeal has been drafted under my
instructions and the contents thereof are true and correct to
my knowledge and may be read as part and parcel of this
affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of November, 2013 that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO.

OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. ASHA ARORA & ANOTHER

APPELLANTS

VERSUS
SHRI D.S. SODHI

...RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT

I, Homender Arora S/o Late Shri Atma Prakash, aged ___

years, R/o 161-A, Sainik Farms, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:1. That I am the appellant no.2 in the above noted appeal. I am
well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying appeal has been drafted under my
instructions and the contents thereof are true and correct to
my knowledge and may be read as part and parcel of this
affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of November, 2013 that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT