HIGH COURT OF DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13th February, 2023 + C.R.P. 38/2023
MOINUDDIN …..versus MR. WASEEM AHMED AND ORS.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

• Specific Relief Act Section 6 Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 25B Dispossession Dismissal of suit for possession and permanent injunction of filed by tenant Cause of action to file suit i.e. date of ‘dispossession’ – Held, tenant unable to place any material on record to show that he was in settled possession of suit property upto date which fell within last six months of institution of suit – In fact, in plaint, it is not even spelt out as to on what exact date, tenant was dispossessed from suit property – Therefore, going by electricity bills which were only piece of evidence on record to show possession of suit property, at the highest, tenant was in possession upto 30.04.2014 – Thus, cause of action, if any, arose on 01.05.2014 and suit was filed on 22.08.2015 and was thus beyond period of limitation of six months prescribed under Section 6(2)(a) of the Act – Hence, dismissal of suit upheld. No relief sought

Relevant

11. Despite several opportunities, Defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 did not cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witnesses and their right to cross- examine was closed vide order dated 23.11.2019.
12. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the suit for possession filed by the Plaintiff and having perused the impugned judgment, this Court finds no infirmity, for the
reasons that follow. Section 6 of the Act, reads as under:-
“6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.– (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person through whom
he has been in possession or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought –
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.”
13. A reading of the provision shows that a person, who is dispossessed from an immovable property without his consent, may file a suit for recovering the possession within six months from dispossession. The intent behind the legislation is to ensure that a
person, who is illegally dispossessed, can seek redressal and his possession can be restored by a proceeding which is summary in nature. The keyword in the provision is, therefore, dispossessed’ and it is from this point that the six months period commences. The question that therefore emanates in the present petition is the triggering point of the cause of action to file the suit i.e. the date of dispossession’
. In this context, I may refer to a judgment of the

Supreme Court in Sudhir Jaggi and Another v. Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhary and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 515, wherein it was held that dispossession would mean not only actual physical dispossession but
also violation of symbolic possession. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, defines the word ‘dispossess’ to mean ‘oust or evict someone from property’
.
14. In the light of Section 6 of the Act, as extracted above, the Trial Court correctly posed the question to itself as to when was the Plaintiff dispossessed, entitling him to relief under Section 6 of the
Act. As noted by the Trial Court, the Plaintiff has set out in the plaint that he was in possession of the first floor of the suit property where he was inducted as a tenant by Defendant No. 2 and a Rent Agreement was executed. Plaintiff placed on record electricity
bills dated 05.06.2013, 29.06.2013 and 30.04.2014, which are Ex.PW-1/1 (colly.). Plaintiff also placed on record certified copies of the petition and order-sheets before the ARC, where an eviction petition was filed against him by Ms. Khatoon on 17.07.2013. The last
electricity bill is dated 30.04.2014, which is two months prior to the institution of the eviction proceedings. Besides the said document, as
rightly noted by the Trial Court, nothing has been placed on record by the Plaintiff to establish either his settled possession prior to the institution of the suit or forced dispossession within six months prior
to the suit and was, therefore, unable to discharge the initial burden under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to Section 101, whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

Plaintiff examined PW-2, who was summoned from the Election Office, to prove the Voter ID Card of the Plaintiff, however, the summoned witness deposed that the record being old could not be traced. Therefore, the Plaintiff was unable to place any material on record to show that he was in settled possession of the suit property upto a date which fell within the last six months of the institution of the suit. In fact, in the plaint, it is not even spelt out as to on what exact date, Plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property. Therefore, going bythe electricity bills which were the only piece of evidence on record toshow possession of the suit property, at the highest, Plaintiff was in possession upto 30.04.2014. The cause of action, if any, arose on 01.05.2014 and the suit was filed on 22.08.2015 and was thus beyond
the period of limitation of six months prescribed under Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. No infirmity can therefore be found with the impugned judgment on this score.

 

To read the judgment click here 

MOINUDDIN versus MR. WASEEM AHMED AND ORS. The Law literates

 

All rights reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav Tomar)