Delhi District Court
Gauri Shankar vs Ajay Kumar on 8 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-03, NORTH-WEST DISTT.,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. : 494/20
CNR No. : DLNW01-007226-2020
In the matter of:
Sh. Gauri Shankar
S/o Lt. Sh. Lekh Ram
R/o H. No. 5880, Block No. 4.
Gali No. 5, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
........ plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh. Hari Kishan
R/o A-2/63-A,
LIG Flat,Ground Floor, Lawrence Road,
Keshav Puram, Delhi-110035.
Also At:
B-4/76 C, Lawrence Road,
Keshav Puram, Delhi-110035.
Also At:
Plot No. 134, Block C,
Sector-3, Bawana Delhi, 110039.
CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 1 of 10
2. Smt. Heena Premchandani
W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar,
D/o Sh. Laxman Dass Motwani
R/o A-2/63A, LIG Flat,
Ground Floor, Lawrence Road,
Keshav Puram, Delhi-110035.
........ Defendants
Date of institution : 26.10.2020
Date on which judgment was reserved : 08.01.2024
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 08.01.2024
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT ALONG WITH PENDENTLITE AND FUTURE INTEREST AND DAMAGES
1) By this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent along with pendentlite and future interest and damages.
2) Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is the absolute and lawful owner of the suit property i.e. Flat No. A-2/63 A, LIG Flat, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, New Delhi-110035 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). It is stated that the said suit property was given on rent to the defendants vide an agreement dt. 18.02.2019 for 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/-, excluding water and electricity CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 2 of 10 charges. The lease was from 22.01.2019 till 21.12.2019. At that time, the defendant no.1 paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiff towards refundable security. However, the defendants were habitual defaulters in payment of rent and hence the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the premises. However, on their request, the tenancy was extended for three to four months and hence a fresh agreement dt. 13.01.2020 was executed for a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- till 21.04.2020. However, no rent was being paid by the defendants since December, 2019.
3) The plaintiff, hence, requested the defendants to vacate the premises but in vain. Hence, a legal notice dt. 28.08.2020 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant for the vacation of the suit property. However, as the same was not done, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.
4) Summons of the suit were served upon the defendants. The defendant no. 1 filed his WS wherein he admitted the factum of tenancy. Further, he stated that he had paid the rent till June, 2020. The other facts as alleged by the plaintiff were denied by the defendant.
5) The defendant no.2, who is the wife of the defendant no. 1 was served vide order dt.18.01.2023 but she failed to file the WS despite opportunity. Hence, she was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 06.05.2023.
CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 3 of 10
6) The plaintiff filed the replication to the WS of the defendant no. 1 wherein the plaintiff denied the averments of the defendant no. 1 and reiterated his own averments.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dt. 09.06.2023.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession as prayed? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of arrears of rent as prayed? (OPP)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of mesne profits as prayed? (OPP)
4. Relief.
7) In his evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents in her evidence:-
1) Aadhar Card and Election I-Card of the plaintiff are exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1. (Colly) (OSR)
2) Conveyance Deed dt. 29.10.2002 and registered on 01.11.2002 and other documents relating to the suit property are exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2 (colly). (OSR)
3) Site plan of the suit property is exhibited as Ex. PW-
1/3.
4) On-line printout of death certificate of the wife of the CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 4 of 10 plaintiff is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4.
5) Registered Rent Agreement dt. 18.02.2019 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5. (OSR)
6) Rent Agreement dt. 13.01.2020 is exhibited as Ex. PW- 1/6. (OSR)
7) Legal notice dt. 28.08.2020 is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7.
8) Postal receipt of legal notice sent through speed post is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/8.
9) Tracking report is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/9 (Colly).
10) Envelop of Legal Notice unserved is exhibited as Ex. PW-
1/10.
11) Complaint dt. 16.08.2020 to SHO PS Keshav Puram is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/11. (OSR)
12) The original death certificate of the wife of the plaintiff which is Ex. PW-1/4A.
13) Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-1/4 B.
8) PW-1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1. In view of separate statement made on behalf of the plaintiff, PE was closed vide order dated 23.12.2023. Vide the same order, the DE was also closed as the defendant no. 1 gave his statement that he did not wish to lead any DE.
CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 5 of 10
9) I have already heard arguments from Sh. H.L. Rai and Sh. Avinash Kumar, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff and Sh. Ajay Khatana, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1. I have perused the entire material available on record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue No. 1.
10) The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. As mentioned above, the plaintiff has alleged that he is the absolute and lawful owner of the suit property. To prove the same, the plaintiff has proved on record the Conveyance Deed executed by the DDA in his and his wife's favour in November, 2002 as Ex. PW-1/2. It is stated that the said suit property was given on rent to the defendants vide an agreement dt. 18.02.2019 for 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs.
14,000/-, excluding water and electricity charges. The said rent agreement is proved as Ex. PW-1/5. The said agreement is a registered agreement and the same has also not been denied by the defendant no.
1. Hence, the said agreement is proved as per law.
11) Perusal of the agreement Ex. PW-1/5 shows that the agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. Hence, it is proved on record that the defendant no. 1 was inducted as a tenant in the suit property by the plaintiff. The only defence taken by the defendant no. 1 is that he has already paid the rent to the plaintiff CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 6 of 10 till June, 2020. It was mentioned in the course of arguments that the marital relationship between the defendants had been strained and that the defendant no. 1 had left the premises. Hence, it was stated that only the defendant no. 2 was in possession of the suit property. However, as the property was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 is the wife of the defendant no. 1, she is bound by the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1.
12) As the tenancy is created under the Transfer of Property Act, the landlord need not prove any other fact except the following facts :-
a) Landlord tenant relationship between the parties,
b) That a legal notice in writing was issued to the tenant for termination of tenancy.
c) That the said legal notice was duly served upon the tenant.
13) In the present matter, as mentioned above, the landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 is not in dispute. Hence, the same is proved. The plaintiff has alleged that he issued a legal notice dated 28.08.2020 to the defendant for the vacation of the suit property. The said notice has been proved as Ex.PW1/7. Its postal receipt is Ex.PW1/8 (colly) and the tracking report is Ex.PW1/9 (colly), as per which the notice was served upon the defendant on 31.08.2020. Hence, as the legal notice terminating the lease was duly served upon the defendant, the defendant is liable CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 7 of 10 to vacate the suit property. Hence, this issue is decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.Issue No. 2 and 3
14) The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged in his plaint that no rent has been paid by the defendants since December, 2019. The plaintiff proved on record the rent agreement Ex. PW-1/5 as per which the agreed rate of rent till 22.12.2019 was Rs. 14,000/- per month. Further, the tenancy was extended by executing a fresh rent agreement dt. 13.01.2020 for a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- till 21.04.2020. The rent agreement is proved as Ex. PW-1/6. It is alleged that no rent was being paid by the defendants since December, 2019. The defendant no. 1 has alleged in his WS that he had paid the rent till June, 2020. As this fact was specifically alleged by him, the onus to prove this fact was upon the defendant no. 1. However, no such evidence has been led by him to prove this fact on record. Hence, the defendant no. 1 has failed to prove that he had paid the rent upto June, 2020. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of rent/mesne profits w.e.f December, 2019 till the exipry of one month of the date of the service of the legal notice i.e. the date of termination of tenancy.
15) As the rent agreements were executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, the rent is also payable by the defendant no. 1 CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 8 of 10 only. The plaintiff has sought the mesne profits @ Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff as to whether the suit property can procure such amount of rent. Hence, the plaintiff is granted mesne profits at the same rate as the agreed rent between the parties. The said issues are accordingly decided in the favour of the plaintiff.
Relief Keeping in view the above discussion, the following reliefs are granted to the plaintiff:
a) A decree of possession is passed directing the defendants to vacate the suit property i.e. Flat No. A-2/63 A, LIG Flat, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, New Delhi-110035 and handover the vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of three months.
b) The defendant no.1 is directed to pay the rent @ Rs.
15,000/- per month w.e.f 22.12.2019 till 30.09.2020 to the plaintiff with pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.
c) The defendant no.1 is further directed to pay damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 9 of 10 expiry of one month of receipt of the legal notice i.e. 30.09.2020 till the actual vacation of the suit property.
Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKAAnnounced in open court RUCHIKA SINGLA
on 8th January, 2024. SINGLA Date:
2024.01.08
16:11:59 -1000
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
Addl. Distt. Judge-03, North-West Distt., Rohini Courts, Delhi.
This judgment contains 10 pages and each page is checked and signed by me.
CS No. 494/20 Gauri Shankar Vs. Ajay Kumar Page No. 10 of 10