Delhi District Court
Smt. Neena Gupta vs Smt. Sonika Bansal on 30 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER: JSCC: ASCJ:
GUARDIAN JUDGE (NORTH EAST) KKD COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. : 372/13
Unique Case ID No. : 02402C039932013
In the matter of :-
Smt. Neena Gupta,
W/o Sh. R.K. Gupta,
R/o C-359, Gali No. 14-15,
Bhajanpura, Delhi. .........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Sonika Bansal,
W/o Sh. Ishwar Singh,
2. Sh. Ishwar Singh,
S/o Sh. Udai Singh,
Both R/o 268, Gali No. 12,
Bhajanpura, Delhi - 110053. ........Defendants
Date of Institution of the suit : 10/12/2013
Date of Final Arguments : 20/07/2015
Date of Pronouncement : 30/07/2015
J U D G M E N T:
1. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for Recovery of Rent, Mandatory and Permanent injunction.
2. In short, facts are as under :-
The plaintiff has averred that she is the owner of the property bearing No. C-268/12, Gali No. 12, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053 measuring 43 ½ Sq. Yds. builtup to double storey Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 1 of 17 pages comprising of two rooms along with kitchen, toilet cum bathroom at ground floor and two rooms along with kitchen, toilet cum bathroom at first floor (hereinafter referred to as suit property) and the same was let out to defendant no. 1 vide rent agreement dt. 21/07/2012 at monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/- excluding electricity and water charges.
It has been averred that defendant no. 1 has paid the rent up to January 2013, thereafter, defendants became irregular in making the payment of rent. Defendant no. 1 has failed to pay the rent since February 2013 despite various requests by the plaintiff. A legal demand notice, dated 23/11/2013 was duly served upon the defendants to which defendants had sent a reply.
The plaintiff has alleged that defendants had filed a false suit for permanent injunction against the husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendants are liable to pay Rs. 88,000/- towards arrears of rent w.e.f. February 2013 till December 2013 and damages @ Rs. 20,000/- till handing over the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also prayed that the defendants be restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
Being aggrieved the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
3. Defendants have contested the present suit by filing their written statement wherein they have taken preliminary objections such as the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff can not take Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 2 of 17 pages advantage of her own wrongs. It is stated that defendant no. 1 entered into a rent agreement on 21/07/2012 with the plaintiff on advance security of Rs. 50,000/- and the rent was decided at the rate of Rs. 3000/- p.m. (Rs. 1,500/- for the ground floor and Rs. 1,500/- for the first floor) excluding electricity and water charges. The defendants have claimed that the rent up to November 2012 has been paid but thereafter plaintiff intentionally and deliberately stopped receiving the rent. Defendants have deposited the rent w.e.f. December 2013 to January 2014 in the court. It has been alleged that only signature of the defendant no. 1 was obtained on the rent agreement but she was not made aware of its contents. The defendants have alleged that plaintiff has filed the present suit in order to grab the security amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Rest of the material contents of the plaint have been denied and the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the present suit with heavy cost.
4. Replication was duly filed by the plaintiff. Contrary averments were denied whereas plaint averments were reiterated as true and correct.
5. Issues were struck by Ld. Predecessor on 07/03/2014 which are as under :-
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed? OPP
(ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent/ mesne profits as claimed? OPP
(iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as claimed? OPP
(iv). Whether the rate of rent of the suit property is Rs. 3000/-
Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 3 of 17 pages p.m.? OPD
(v). Relief.
It is pertinent to mention that issue no. (i) was altered vide order dt. 20/07/2015 and issue no. (i) reads as under :-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property as claimed? OPP Parties were directed to lead evidence.
6. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff has examined her SPA holder Sh. R.K. Gupta as PW 1 and the attesting witness to the rent agreement Sh. Prahlad as PW 2.
PW 1 and PW 2 have tendered their evidence by way of affidavit which are Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 2/B. PW 1 has relied upon the documents such Copy of Attorney dt. 10/12/2013 as Ex. PW 1/1, Copy of Rent Agreement dt. 21/07/2012 as Ex. PW 1/2, Police Verification Form as Ex. PW 1/3, Copy of Legal Notice dt. 23/11/2013 as Ex. PW 1/4, Copy of Reply to the Legal Notice dt. 28/11/2013 as Ex. PW 1/5, Copy of Complaint dt. 23/11/2013 as Mark A, Copy of Site Plan as Ex. PW 1/7. Both the witnesses have been duly cross- examined by Ld. counsel for the defendants.
Thereafter, the plaintiff evidence was closed.
7. In rebuttal, the defendants have stepped into the witness box as DW 1 and DW 2 and have filed their evidence by way of affidavit which are Ex. DW 1/A and Ex. DW 2/A. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length on behalf of plaintiff.
Thereafter, defendants closed their evidence.
8. Rival submissions advanced at bar have been heard and record perused.
Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 4 of 17 pages
9. Issue-wise findings are as under :
Issue (iv) : Whether the rate of rent of the suit property is Rs.
3000/- p.m.? OPD
10. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. It would be apposite to take this issue first as the adjudication on this issue would determine the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present suit.
11. Ld. counsel for the defendants vehemently urged that the monthly rental of the suit property being Rs. 3000/-, the defendants cannot suffer ejectment decree from civil court in view of Section 50 of DRC Act.
12. Riding on the assertion that the monthly rent is Rs. 8000/- excluding electricity and water charges, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the tenancy is outside the purview of the DRC Act. Thus, the pivotal question in controversy which firstly needs adjudication is whether the relief of ejectment as sought against the defendant / tenant is barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act.
13. Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with respect to the matters which the Rent Controller under the provisions of the said Act has been empowered to entertain and decide. Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides that the Act does not extend to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500/-.
14. The execution of the Rent Agreement dt. 21/07/2012 Ex. PW 1/2 between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 has been admitted. The defendant no. 1 has set up a defence that though the Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 5 of 17 pages Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2 bears her signatures, the contents were not explained to her. The husband of defendant no. 1 / DW 2 testified, in his cross examination, that the Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2 was blank when it was signed. The self favouring averment of the defendants, without any material in support thereof, will not suffice. There is no proof that the signatures of the defendant no. 1 were obtained by force or by playing fraud.
15. In M/s. Grasin Industries Ltd. & Anrs. Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Steel, AIR 2010 SC (Supp.) 291, it was held :-
"When a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the documents properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted............. When signature of the party on the document is admitted, it is difficult to accept the plea that the party has signed the document under some mistake."
16. It is difficult to believe that the defendant no. 1 signed on the Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2 without reading its contents and without even knowing the consequences thereof. Defendant no. 2 / DW 2 stated in his cross examination that the Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2 was signed it was blank. A person is not expected to sign the documents when it is blank or without reading its contents and if he does so, he does it as his own peril.
17. In Corporation Bank Vs. Sushil Enterprises 2003 VI AD (Delhi) 467, it was observed that nobody is expected to sign documents without reading it or when it is blank and if he does so, he does at his own risk.
18. The defendants live in a metropolitan city of Delhi and are not totally gullible so as not to discern the consequences of appending Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 6 of 17 pages signatures on papers. The defendants yarn about signing the Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2 without understanding its contents is difficult to believe.
19. The defendants chose to remain silent about the signatures of defendant no. 1 being taken deceitfully on the Rent Agreement till the service of legal notice dt. 23/11/2013 Ex. PW 1/4, whereas, the alleged signatures were taken on 21/07/2012. No complaint has been made by the defendants to any authority prior to receipt of the legal notice Ex. PW 1/4 regarding the signatures of defendant no. 1 being procured on the Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2 without explaining her the contents thereof. The Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2 is a typed document and is signed at appropriate places and also bears the signatures of two attesting witnesses. The irresistible conclusion is that the version of the defendants that the signatures were obtained on blank papers or without explaining the contents is highly improbable. The said defence appears to be an after thought and is palpably false.
20. Thus, it stands proved that the tenancy was governed by the Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2. The said Rent Agreement is not registered, therefore, the question of admissibility of said document in evidence does arise for consideration.
21. Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act postulates that :
(1). The following document shall be registered if the property to which it relates situate in a District in which, and it may have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No.XVI of 1864 or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 or the Indian Registration Act, 1908 Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 7 of 17 pages came or comes into force, namely......
(d). Least of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent.
22. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act regulates how lease is to be made. The first part thereof provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument.
23. A conjoint reading of the first part of Section 107 read with Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act, as extracted herein above, does indicate that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent should be made only by an registered instrument.
24. Section 49 of the Registration Act prohibits receiving in evidence certain types of documents. It read as under :
"No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall -
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power.
unless it has been registered".
25. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act provides an exception and lays down that such document may, inter alia, be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by the registered instrument.
26. It is settled law that unregistered lease deed can be Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 8 of 17 pages looked into for collateral purposes as held in the case of K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd. 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 327. An unregistered rent agreement can be looked into for the purpose of determining the rate of rent. In the case of Chander Mohan Arora Vs. Sunil Jain (Delhi) (DB) 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 47, it has been observed that even if the lease deed was unregistered, still it could have been looked by the court for collateral purposes i.e determining agreed rate of rent and other terms and conditions.
27. In the unregistered rent agreement Ex. PW 1/2, the rate of rent has been specifically mentioned as Rs. 8,000/- per month. The plaintiff /PW 1, in his cross examination, categorically denied the suggestion that the suit property was never let out for Rs. 8000/- p.m. and the same was let out for Rs. 3000/- p.m.
28. Even the attesting witness, Sh. Prahlad / PW 2, in his cross examination, denied that the rate of rent was not fixed for Rs. 8000/- p.m. and it was fixed for Rs. 3000/- p.m. PW 2 also denied the suggestion that he does not know on what terms and conditions the suit property was let out to the defendant. Both the plaintiff and attesting witness to the rent agreement have withstood the rigours of cross examination.
29. The defendants have taken a vexatious defence by making averment that the monthly rent of suit property was Rs. 3000/- p.m. which is entirely contrary to the terms of the rent agreement Ex. PW 1/2. The rigours of Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act binds them with full force.
30. The rule with regard to writings is that oral proof cannot be substituted for the written evidence of any contract which the Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 9 of 17 pages parties have put into writing. And the reason is that the writing is tacitly considered by the parties themselves as the only repository and the appropriate evidence of their agreement.
31. In the instant case, as the rate of rent was reduced into writing and the rent agreement Ex. PW 1/2 was executed, in view of section 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act, any oral evidence regarding the rate of rent cannot be admitted in evidence.
32. Thus, in view of the rate of rent being specifically mentioned as Rs. 8000/- p.m. in the rent agreement and on account of failure of the defendants to discredit the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2, the plaintiff has established the rate of rent to be Rs. 8000/- p.m.
33. Moreover, the Court cannot be ignorant of the fact that the suit property is builtup to double storey comprising of two rooms along with kitchen, toilet cum bathroom at ground floor and two rooms along with kitchen, toilet cum bathroom at first floor and is situated in the locality of Bhajanpura, Delhi. The present is not an old tenancy and admittedly the suit property has been let out to the defendant no. 1 in July 2012, thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be believed that a two rooms set along with amenities of kitchen, toilet and bathroom on ground and first floor will be let out by any prudent man for a paltry sum of Rs. 3000/- per month only.1
34. The plea of the plaintiff of monthly rent being Rs. 8000/- seems more probable in contrast to the stand of the defendant that the agreed rate of rent was merely Rs. 3000/- per month. According to Section 3 of Evidence Act, a fact is said to be 'proved' when, after considering the matters before it, the Court believes it to exist, or 1 Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as Ms. Shabnam Shamsi Vs. Farzana Begum CM (M) No. 296 / 14 decided on 03.11.2014 wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that even a small Jhuggi is not available in Delhi for Rs.2,000/ per month.
Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 10 of 17 pages considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
35. In the instant lis, when the suit property comprises of two rooms set situated at ground floor and first floor, from the point of view of a prudent man, the court considers the existence of the assertion of monthly rent being Rs. 8000/- a probable one.
36. The version of the plaintiff of monthly rent being Rs. 8000/- is duly supported by the rent agreement Ex. PW 1/2 and by the reliable testimony of the attesting witness to the rent agreement /PW
2. In contrast, in support of the assertion of the rent being Rs. 3000/- per month, all that is there for the defendants is their self serving ipse dixit in the form of oral evidence.
37. The defendants could not withstand the rigours of cross examination. The defendant no. 1 /DW 1, in her cross examination, has stated that Rent Agreement was executed but she does not know the contents thereof. The husband of defendant no. 1 / DW 2 firstly stated in his cross examination that no rent agreement was prepared in regard to the suit property. Thereafter, DW 2 stated that he was present when the rent agreement was executed. He volunteered and stated that he had signed on blank papers.
38. A perusal of cross examination of defendants reveal that they have put forth conflicting defence as DW 1 has stated that she was not explained the contents whereas DW 2 stated that the Rent Agreement was blank. The defendants firstly denied the execution of the rent agreement and thereafter when the documents was shown to them, defendant no. 1 admitted her signatures on it and the defendant Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 11 of 17 pages no. 2 had admitted that he was present when the rent agreement was signed. Both the defendants have made vacillating statements in contrast to PW 1 and PW 2 whose version of monthly rent being Rs. 8000/- could not be shaken by the defendants despite searching and lengthy cross examination.
39. In view of above, on preponderance of probabilities, the Court is inclined to hold, in the circumstances of the case, that the monthly rental of the suit property is Rs. 8000/- excluding electricity and water charges. The monthly rental of the suit property being Rs.8000/-, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred by section 3 (c) & Section 50 of DRC Act.
Issue (iv) is accordingly decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue (i) : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property as claimed? OPP
40. The onus to prove this issue rests upon the plaintiff. In a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff has to prove the following :-
(a) The rent was more than Rs.3,500/- per month i.e. the tenancy was beyond the ambit of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
(b) The tenancy has been validly terminated.
(c) Needless to say the existence of landlord and tenant
relationship.
41. At the cost of the repetition, the rent of tenanted premises has been held to be Rs. 8000/- per month excluding electricity and water charges, the tenancy in question is, thus, not governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The relationship of Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 12 of 17 pages landlord-tenant stands admitted. The service of valid legal notice dated 23/11/2013 Ex.PW1/4 stands admitted in as much as the same has been replied by the defendants vide reply dt. 28/11/2013 Ex. PW 1/5. The tenancy of the defendants stands terminated w.e.f.
31/12/2013 i.e., 15 days after service of the legal notice dated 23/11/2013 Ex. PW1/4 expiring with the end of the month of tenancy. The plaintiff has established the essential ingredients of a suit for possession.
Issue (i) is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue (ii) : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent/ mesne profits as claimed? OPP
42. The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendants have not paid the rent to her since February 2013. The defendants, per contra, averred that they have paid rent upto November 2013 and thereafter the plaintiff refused to receive rent and defendants deposited the rent for the month of December 2013 and January 2014 in court.
43. It is settled law that when the plaintiff alleges non- payment of rent, the onus lies upon the defendant/tenant to prove that he has paid the rent. It has been held in Sukhanand Vs. IVth Additional District Judge, Bulendshahar & ors. 1994 (2) RCR (Rent) 408 that the onus to show payment of rent lies on the tenant and oral testimony of tenant in regard to the payment of rent claiming discharge of liability in this regard cannot be admitted to be worth reliance at all.
44. Similar view has been reiterated in the case titled as Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 13 of 17 pages Raghubir Prasad Vs. Rajendra Kumar Gurudev, 1993(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 234, wherein it has been held that on default in payment of rent, the onus to show payment of rent lies on tenant. Further, in the case of Satya Prakash Vs. District Judge Ghaziabad, 1982(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 295, it was observed that if in a petition, tenant alleges that rent is paid, then as per Evidence Act, burden to prove payment lies on the tenant, as he alleges that payment is made.
45. Reference can also be made to the judgment titled as Karamchand Deojee Sanghavi Vs. Tulshiram Kalu Kumawat, 1992(1) RCR 118 wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that in a case of eviction on arrears of rent, the onus would always be on tenant to prove that he has paid the rent.
46. Thus, in the instant case, the onus was upon the defendants/tenant to prove that they had made up-to-date payment of rent and there were no arrears of rent due against them. No evidence has been adduced by the defendants to show that defendant no. 1 had been regularly making payment of the rent w.e.f., February 2013. The defendant no. 1 is, accordingly, held to be in the arrears of rent for the period 01/02/2013 till 31/12/2013. The rate of rent being Rs. 8000/- per month. The plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent @ Rs.8000/- per month w.e.f., 01/02/2013 till 31/12/2013 i.e. the date of termination of tenancy.
47. The plaintiff has further claimed mesne profits / damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. The defendants have denied their liability to make payment of mesne profits / damages. Mesne profit is nothing, but the damages which the erstwhile tenant has to pay after determination of lease. The landlord has to be compensated for the Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 14 of 17 pages loss caused, because he is denied and deprived of the possession of the property.
48. The question of damages automatically comes to the fora as from 01/01/2014 the tenancy does not subsist. Admittedly, after 31/12/2013, the defendants had no permission for occupation of the suit property. Now, adverting to determination of rate at which the damages should be awarded in the instant case. The plaintiff has not led any cogent evidence as to what rental the suit property would have fetched during the pendency of the present suit. The plaintiff has not examined any person who was well versed with the rentals prevailing in the area in which the suit property is situated nor the record from Sub Registrar Office has been summoned so that the lease deeds executed during the contemporaneous period could have been brought on record.
49. However, there are catena of decisions wherein it has been held that while determining mesne profits / damages, the Courts are well entitled to take judicial notice of the increase in rentals of the area where the property is situated. Decisions reported as (i) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. I. S. Ratta & Ors. 120 (2005) DLT 407 (ii) National Radio & Electrical Co. Ltd. vs. Motion Pictures Association 122 (2005) DLT 629, and (iii) Motor & General Finance Ltd. vs. Nirulas & Ors. 92 (2001) DLT 97 can be referred.
50. After considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the mesne profits / damages are awarded at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. 01/01/2014 till the handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff subject to filing of appropriate court fees on Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 15 of 17 pages record.
51. Before parting, it would be apposite to mention that the rent agreement dated 21/07/2012 Ex PW1/2 is on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- only. The adequate stamp duty has not been affixed upon the rent agreement Ex PW1/2. The document is, thus, liable to be sent to Collector of Stamps for payment of appropriate stamp duty & penalty by the plaintiff/ landlord.
Issue (ii) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue (iii) : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as claimed? OPP
52. The onus to prove this issue rests upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought a restraint order against the defendants to the effect that they shall not transfer or create any third party interest in the suit property. The defendants were inducted in the suit property in the capacity of tenants. The tenancy stands terminated and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
Issue (iii) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF :-
In view of the discussion on the aforementioned issues, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. C-268/12, Gali No. 12, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053 measuring 43 ½ Sq. Yds. builtup to double storey comprising of two rooms along with kitchen, toilet Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 16 of 17 pages cum bathroom at ground floor and two rooms along with kitchen, toilet cum bathroom at first floor as per site plan Ex. PW 1/7.
The plaintiff is also entitled to arrears of rent @ Rs. 8000/- per month w.e.f., 01/02/2013 till 31/12/2013. The plaintiff is further entitled to mesne profits / damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. 01/01/2014 till the handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff subject to filing of appropriate court fees on record. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
However, as the Rent Agreement Ex. PW 1/2 in the present case has not been properly stamped, hence the same is hereby impounded and the same be sent to the Collector of Stamps, who shall deal with the same as per the provisions of the Stamp Act and shall issue a certificate under Section 40 of the Stamp Act and the decree shall be executable only after the said certificate of the Collector of Stamps is received by the court directly or filed by the plaintiff/Decree Holder.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (SHUCHI LALER)
on this 30th day of July, 2015 JSCC/ASCJ/G.Judge (NE)
KKD Courts, Delhi.
Suit No. 372/13 Neena Gupta Vs. Sonika Bansal & Anr. Page 17 of 17 pages