Joginder Tuli vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors

Sr. No.,Date of Agreement,Area,Payment Made

1.,29.09.1990,135+135=270 sq. ft. Shop No.20/21,"Rs.9,95,000/-

2.,05.07.1995,145 sq. ft. Shop No.32,"Rs.7,20,000/-

3.,20.09.1997,200 sq. ft.,"Rs.11,75,000/-

4.,08.02.1998,200 sq. ft.,"Rs.6,00,000/-

Kumar Chugh (since deceased). It is stated that MoU has no witnesses. Status Report also records that there is no proof of any payment to,,,

Ravinder Kumar Chugh regarding the property in question.,,,

The Status Report also records that the chain of documents of the property in question showing the ownership of M/s Infinity Buildwell Private,,,

Limited was handed over by Arvinder Singh. Status Report also records that the petitioner had filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No.207857/2016,,,

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South East, Saket for specific performance. However, the said suit has been dismissed on the ground of",,,

limitation.Â,,,

The Status Report also records that the portion which is claimed by the petitioner was sealed because a chemist shop was being run from the,,,

alleged portion in the name of R K Pharma. It is stated that since as it was a part of the residential area, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had",,,

sealed the premises of the chemist shop.,,,

The petitioner, who is appearing in person, has taken this Court through the said documents stating that he had entered into an Agreement to Sell",,,

on 05.07.1995 for purchasing 145 sq. ft. of B-43, Greater Kailash-I to the consideration of Rs.7,20,000/-. He states that the possession of the",,,

property could not be handed over because the property was under construction. An MoU was entered into between the petitioner and Ravinder,,,

Kumar Chugh for which he had entered into an collaboration agreement with one M/s Rock Contractors Private Limited.Â,,,

It is stated that since the possession of the property could not be handed over, an MoU was entered into for purchase of 200 sq. ft. in B-43",,,

Greater Kailash-I as the said portion was a shop. Memorandum of Understanding records that the full consideration of the amount has already been,,,

paid and further records that vacant possession of the property has been handed over to the petitioner.Â,,,

The petitioner states that this property was sealed because a chemist shop was running in the premises and the shop was being run by the,,,

erstwhile owners of the property. He states that he was receiving Rs.50,000/- as rent. He states that the shop was sealed in the year 2008. He",,,

states that an affidavit was given to the MCD as no commercial activity was being conducted. He states that on the basis of the said affidavit, the",,,

shop was de-sealed vide letter dated 21.08.2008 and he had the possession of the same.,,,

The petitioner states that the associate of the petitioner went to the shop on 16.11.2019 for the purpose of renovation but he was not permitted to,,,

enter the shop. It is stated that the police was called. Police reached the spot and respondent No.4, SI Karan Chaudhary asked for documents and",,,

even after submitting those documents, the petitioner was not permitted to enter the shop. He submits that the police have failed to investigate the",,,

matter over seven months since the first complaint was filed by him. He submits that the police are acting in a prejudicial manner by not investigating,,,

the matter thoroughly and he has numerous times appealed to the S.H.O., PS G.K. and the Commissioner of Police, South Delhi urging a probe into",,,

the matter, but no action was taken against the M/s Infinity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. He questioned the inert conduct of police and argued that he was",,,

manhandled, spoken to abusively and belittled by Arvinder Singh in the presence of Police Officers. He submits that he was called to the police",,,

station frequently despite submitting the relevant documents concerning the property. Further, the police have not taken the offenders into custody and",,,

he submits that three Investigating Officers have been changed in the matter so far and every newly appointed I.O., he argued, asks for the same",,,

property papers repeatedly. He states that it has now transpired that the shop has been sealed by the Police. He states that the action should be,,,

taken against the police official for restraining him from entering his own premises. He states that action should also be taken against the Police for,,,

not taking action against the accused and in sealing the shop since 2019 which they did not have the authority to do so.,,,

Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned ASC, states that a PCR call dated 16.11.2019 was received at Police Station Greater Kailash regarding opening of",,,

locks. It is stated that the said complaint was reduced in writing vide G.D. No.11A. It is stated that the case was assigned to SI Karan who asked,,,

for documents. It is stated that instead of giving documents, a complaint was filed against SI Karan stating that he has connived with the occupants",,,

and is restraining the petitioner to enter into the premises. It is stated that SI Karan was transferred and the case was assigned to SI Sanjeev,,,

Kumar.Â,,,

Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned ASC, states that the petitioner was asked to produce the documents and he took some time for producing the",,,

documents. She states that instead of producing the documents, he filed a complaint on 17.01.2020. She states that on 27.01.2020, a third complaint",,,

was given. On 27.06.2020, a fourth complaint was given against the Investigating Officer. She states that other than an unstamped and unregistered",,,

MoU, there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in possession of the property. She states that no possession letter from the MCD has been",,,

shown from which it can be ascertained that the MCD had handed over the possession of the premises in question to the petitioner after de-sealing.,,,

 She also states that no MCD tax receipts, electricity bills or details of payment of rent by tenant etc. has been shown by the petitioner to show his",,,

possession of the area.Â,,,

It is stated that the petitioner has not even given the details of the tenants to show that they were in the possession and he was being paid rent.Â,,,

She further states that an agreement dated 15.11.2020 was arrived at between the petitioner and one Shrikant Sharma who is an associate advocate,,,

of the petitioner but the stamp paper was of a later date. She submits, thus far, the Petitioner has only handed a copy of the MOU dated 17.10.2003",,,

between him and Mr. Ravinder Chugh, whereas Arvinder Singh, representative of Infinity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. produced the complete set of documents",,,

proving its legal title over the property. She submits that he further presented the documents of a pharmacy that previously existed at the place of shop,,,

before it was sealed by the MCD.,,,

It is stated that in the absence of any possession, there is no necessity of conducting any vigilance inquiry and the complaint has been closed. It",,,

is also stated that in any event, the property subsequently has been sold to some other person and the building has been demolished.",,,

Mr. J P Sengh, learned Senior Advocate for the interveners, states that the property initially belonged to one Sushila Devi, mother of Ravinder",,,

Kumar Chugh. He states that she had passed away on 04.12.1996. He states that the Agreement to Sell dated 05.07.1995 pertained to 145 sq. ft.,,,

of property and possession was to be given after the completion of construction. He states that the present MoU dated 17.10.2003 does not mention,,,

the earlier Agreement to Sell nor does it give any schedule as to which portion of the property has been given. He states that there is no proof that,,,

any amount is being paid. No receipt has been shown either in the MoU or in the Agreement to Sell. He states that the amount in the MoU is,,,

Rs.7,20,000/- whereas in the written submissions, it is Rs.9,30,000/-.",,,

Heard Mr. Joginder Tuli, the petitioner appearing in person, Ms.Richa Kapoor, learned ASC for the State, and Mr. J P Sengh, learned Senior",,,

Advocate for the interveners and perused the material on record.,,,

The petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the Commissioner of Police to conduct vigilance inquiry under,,,

the supervision of a senior officer of not less than the rank of ACP against the respondent No.3 to 6 of Greater Kailash Police Station on the ground,,,

that being in conspiracy with the accused persons, they have not conducted a fair enquiry in complaints dated 18.11.2019, 14.01.2020, 27.01.2020,",,,

27.06.2020.,,,

27. The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of 200 sq. ft. of commercial space situated at B-43, Greater Kailash-I. To prove his",,,

possession, the petitioner relies on an Agreement to Sell dated 05.07.1995 for purchase of one shop bearing B-43, Greater Kailash-I, admeasuring 145",,,

sq. ft. on the ground floor building. It is the case of the petitioner that the possession of the property could not be handed over to the petitioner,,,

because B-43, Greater Kailash-I was under construction by virtue of collaboration agreement entered into between vendor M/s Rock Contractors",,,

Sr. No.,Receipt dated,Amount,

1.,26.09.1996,"Rs.50,000/-",

2.,18.11.1996,"Rs.50,000/-",

3.,18.12.1996,"Rs.50,000/-",

4.,02.02.1997,"Rs.2,50,000/-",

5.,02.03.1997,"Rs.55,000/-",

6.,02.04.1997,"Rs.50,000/-",

7.,02.05.1997,"Rs.50,000/-",

8.,12.05.1997,"Rs.1,50,000/-",

9.,02.09.1997,"Rs.50,000/-",

10.,02.07.1997,"Rs.50,000/-",

11.,12.07.1997,"Rs.55,000/-",

12.,19.07.1997,"Rs.30,000/-",

protect his possession under the shield of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Even otherwise, mere Agreement to Sell of an",,,

immovable property, even if the plea of oral agreement is accepted for the sake of argument, would not create any right in favour of the",,,

tenant-appellant to hold over the possession of the suit property.""",,,

No fault can be found with the stand of the State that the petitioner has failed to produce any document which can establish possession. Had the,,,

petitioner been in lawful possession, he definitely would have filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act within six months of being",,,

dispossessed and the date of dispossession which admittedly is 16.11.2019. Thus has not been done. The complaints given by the petitioner to the,,,

Police for conducting inquiry with subsequent writ petition is ,therefore, completely unfounded. The present petition looks like an attempt by the",,,

petitioner to get the possession of the property and to get over the limitation for filing the suit which disables him to file a suit for specific performance,,,

for the MoU dated 17.10.2003.Â,,,

The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations along within pending application(s), if any.",,,