RSA/287/2014 of MN THAKUR Vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 25[th] November, 2014

+ RSA 287/2014

MN THAKUR

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Anirudh Wadhwa & Mr.Ieshan Sinha, Advocates

versus

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ANR

..... Respondents Through: Ms.Sagari Dhandha, Advocate

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM No. 17984/2014 (exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 17983/2014 (additional documents)

By way of this application copy of the replication is sought to be placed on record. This application is rendered infructuous as the trial court record itself has been requisitioned.

The application is disposed of.

Rev.Petition No. 483/2014 & CM No. 17982/2014 (stay)

Review of order of 14[th] October, 2014 is sought on the ground that the licence deed in question and letter of 14[th]

November, 1987 is not admitted by appellant and so the reliance placed on the aforesaid two disputed documents needs to be re-considered. Attention of this Court is drawn to Division Bench judgment of this Court in DCM Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority (2013) AIR CC 1883. Reliance is also placed on Apex Court’s decision in Alka Gupta vs. Narender Kumar Gupta (2010) 10 SCC 141 to submit that the question of title is raised in the suit and so without trial, the suit proceedings cannot be short-circuited.

Learned counsel for first respondent draws the attention of this Court to paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint to point out that appellant-plaintiff has admitted that he was put in possession of the suit property in January, 1966 at rental of `16 including electricity and water charges and no receipt of the rent paid was given to him. It is also pointed out that as per appellant-plaintiff, Shri Hriday Nath Kunzru was the owner of the property in question and Mr.Kunzru purportedly told appellant-plaintiff not to pay the rent to Sh. S.R.Sharma through whom appellant-plaintiff is said to come into possession of the suit property and nobody had turned up to collect the rent and appellant-plaintiff continued in possession of the suit property. On the plea of adverse possession, appellant-plaintiff had filed suit for declaration of being owner of the suit property and had sought injunction.

It is averred in the plaint by appellant-plaintiff that he had been paying to the officials of respondent-University, electricity and water charges as they have been threatening to forcibly dispossess appellant-plaintiff from the suit premises. Learned

RSA No.287/2014

counsel for respondent-University submits that it is the stand of appellant-plaintiff that he is paying water and electricity charges to the officials of respondent-University and so the title of respondent-University qua the suit property cannot be disputed.

Upon hearing and on perusal of order of 14[th] October, 2014, I do find that the licence deed and letter of 14[th] November, 1987 are disputed by appellant and in view of the dictum of Division Bench judgment of this Court in DCM Ltd. (supra) that where there is title dispute of property, the bar of Section 15 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 will not apply. The proceedings in civil suit cannot be short-circuited except in case where it is apparent that the title dispute of property is just farce. In the considered opinion of this Court, the instant case comes within the exception to the general rule of not short-circuiting civil proceedings. Such view is being taken in view of averments made by appellant-plaintiff in paragraphs No.4&5 of the plaint which have been adverted to as above. Once the appellant-plaintiff has taken the stand in the plaint that he was tenant at rental then he cannot dispute the title of respondent-University particularly when appellant has averred in plaint that he had been paying water and electricity charges to officials of respondent-University.In the considered opinion of this Court, the title dispute sought to be raised by plaintiff is negated by the averments made in the plaint and so the plaintiff’s suit is barred by Section 15 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

RSA No.287/2014

On the aforesaid reasoning, this review petition and the application are dismissed while refusing to review the order of 14[th] October, 2014 as the fate of the appeal would remain the same.

NOVEMBER 25, 2014 mb/vn

(SUNIL GAUR) Judge