KEWAL KRISHAN AHUJA vs Jagdip Singh

BRIEF facts of the case are that a single storyed house built on a plot of 288 sq.yards bearing Municipal No. C-9, Malviya Nagar belonged to one Jesna Ram. On his death, his wife Smt. Jamuna Devi became the owner. Smt. Jamuna Devi sold the house to Jagdip Singh by sale-deed dated 4.7.1985. The house had three shops opening on the main road on the southern side of the house. Except for one store room about which we will revert a little later, the other portions were in occupation of different tenants. In one of the front shops there was electric connection K. No. (sic.) 782335 since the time of the previous owner. The same had been disconnected on 2.9.1995, apparently on account of non-payment of charges due to DESU. After purchase of the house Jagdip Singh made an application on 19.12.1985 for restoration of the said electric connection and for shifting the same to the back portion of the building. On the same date he deposited Rs. 185/- and another sum of Rs. 10/- on 20.12.1985 and also completed various formalities. The connection was, however, not restored nor shifted. However, as advised, Jagdip Singh made another application for a fresh connection on 28.8.1989 and deposited Rs. 600/- with DESU. His case was that the objection of DESU that connection was not being released in the absence of a duly sanctioned building plan was not valid, primarily because the building had been constructed prior to 1960 and already three other electric connections existed in the other portions of the building occupied by Kewal Krishan Ahuja, Ishwar Das Malhotra and Harbans Lal. Jagdip Singh filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Forum in 1993. After hearing both the parties i.e. Jagdip Singh and DESU, District Forum-II allowed the complaint by order dated 3.10.1994 and directed the opposite party DESU to give a new connection to Jagdip Singh and shift the connection No. 82335 to the back portion besides paying Rs. 200/- as costs.

THE case of the present appellant K.K. Ahuja, is that the aforesaid order had been obtained by Jagdip Singh by suppressing material facts and by practising fraud on the District Forum. His case was that, in fact, the room in the back portion of the building alongwith other accommodation described in detail by him was comprised in his tenancy since long before Jagdip Singh came into the picture. THE appellant came to know about the order passed by the District Forum on 3.1.1995 and on the same day he moved an application before the District Forum for being impleaded and afforded an opportunity to put forward his case. THE application was, however, dismissed on the ground that the District Forum had no powers of review, on the same day i.e. 3.1.1995. Aggrieved by the order, Kewal Krishan Ahuja, hereinafter referred to as the KKA, has preferred this appeal. Reply has been filed by Jagdip Singh, respondent. The case of KKA is that the back portion comprised in his tenancy included one room, store, covered varandah, kitchen, bathroom and W.C. He was paying Rs. 20/- per month as rent to the then landlady, Jamuna Devi. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 35/-. On 7.7.1985, he was forcibly dispossessed of the kitchen with the help of some policemen in plain clothes and some muscle men. He sought the help of the flying squad as well as the police post but to no purpose. He sent telegram to the S.P. but no belief was given to him. Ultimately, he filed a Civil Suit No. 305/ 1985 in the Civil Court on 23.7.1985. He also made an application for temporary injunction and the defendants were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the portion claimed by the plaintiff KKA to comprise in his tenancy. Later on, the suit was amended by impleading Jagdip Singh as defendant No. 3. The suit is still pending and the injunction referred to above operating.

We have carefully gone through the copies of the plaint including amended plaint as well as the written statement filed in the suit by Jagdip Singh. What is described as "kitchen" by KKA is described as a "store" by Jagdip Singhand he claims that vacant possession of the same had been delivered to him and this fact was duly incorporated in the registered sale-deed dated 4.7.1985 (at page 58 of the documents filed by Jagdip Singh in the appeal). In para 4 of the saledeed, it was stated that symbolical possession had been delivered of the portions of the building in which there were tenants, actual physical possession was delivered to the vendee (Jagdip Singh) of one room measuring 8'' x 8'' alongwith open courtyard which was in possession of the vendor. The contention of Jagdip Singh is that under the sale he was in occupation of the said room described by him as a store and it was in that portion that he wanted DESU to install the fresh electric connection.

THE case of the KKA, on the other hand, is that the disputed room was, in fact, a kitchen and was used as such when he was dispossessed forcibly leading to report to the police as well as institution of the civil suit which is pending and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with regard thereto. A perusal of the pleadings in the Civil Court makes it clear that one of the issues between KKA and Jagdip Singh is whether the said room described as store or kitchen is comprised of the tenancy of KKA or its vacant possession was delivered by the vendor at the time of sale and the same is in possession of Jagdip Singh. In a situation like this, it was clearly the duty of Jagdip Singh to have disclosed the necessary facts including the civil suit which has been pending since July, 1985 and in which he had been impleaded as defendant No. 3. It also appears mat he should have impleaded KKA as a party in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum. The order obtained by him in order to have a fresh electric connection installed in a room which KKA claims to be comprised in his tenancy without impleading the latter amounts to suppression of material facts and practising fraud upon the District Forum. For these reasons, KKA is impleaded as opposite party 2 and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. On the decision of the suit by the Civil Court it will be open to the parties or either of them to take further necessary action in the light of the findings by the Civil Court. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties as well as District Forum-II. Order set aside.