Delhi District Court
Sh. Praveen Handa vs Sh. Piyush Jain on 16 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Presided by: SH. VINEET KUMAR.
Civil Suit No. 492/2020
Sh. Praveen Handa
S/o Late Sh. Kewal Kishan Handa
r/o B-5, 3rd Floor, East Krishna Nagar
Delhi - 51.
......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Piyush Jain
S/o Sh. Jaipal Singh,
Permanent R/o P-44-8, Gali No. 2
Geeta Bal Bharti, Shankar Nagar Extn.
Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 51.
Presently residing at:
B-5, Upper Ground Floor,
East Krishna Nagar, Delhi 59.
......Defendant
ORDER
Date of Institution : 22.10.2020
Order reserved on : 14.02.2022
Order passed on : 16.02.2022
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the application CS No. 492/20 Page 1 / 19 u/s 151 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this application are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for a decree of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits/damages with consequential relief of injunction against the defendant thereby asserting that plaintiff is the absolute owner of built-up property bearing no. B-5, Upper Ground floor, area measuring 91 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 824, situated at abadi of East of Krishna Nagar, village Ghondli, Shahdara, Delhi - 51 (herein after referred to as suit property), having succeeded the same from his deceased father Late Sh. Kewal Krishan Handa. Plaintiff had inducted defendant as a tenant on the Upper Ground Floor of the suit property (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises) on 01.03.2020 vide registered rent agreement dated 19.03.2020 on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- excluding water and electricity charges. It is further averred that plaintiff received advance rent of Rs. 20,000/- for the month of March, 2020 and Rs. 20,000/- as security from defendant and possession of the tenanted premises was handed over to defendant on 01.03.2020. It is further averred that defendant paid rent only till May, 2020 and failed to make any payment of rent and other charges since June 2020, despite repeated requests. It is also alleged that defendant extended threats to the plaintiff for dire consequences, in case plaintiff demands either arrears of rent or possession of tenanted premises from the defendant due to which a written complaint in PS Krishna Nagar, was given by the CS No. 492/20 Page 2 / 19 plaintiff against the defendant. Thereafter, by virtue of termination notice dated 17.08.2020, plaintiff terminated the tenancy of defendant, but the defendant failed to abide by said termination notice. Subsequently, plaintiff served the defendant with a legal notice dated 01.09.2020, but despite service of legal notice, defendant neither paid the rent/arrears of rent nor vacated the tenanted premises. It is further averred that in the reply to the said notice, defendant admitted the existence of the rent agreement dated 18.03.2020 as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant qua the tenanted premises. It is also averred that after the termination of tenancy, the status of defendant qua the tenanted premises is that of unauthorized occupant since 01.09.2020 and therefore, he is liable to pay the mesne profits / damages @ Rs. 25000/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.09.2020 till the date of handing over the physical and vacant possession of the tenanted premises. Hence, the present suit.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
3. Written statement (WS) was filed on behalf of defendant wherein he admitted his tenancy in respect of tenanted premises, however, it has further been alleged that in the site plan, the measurement of the room has not been incorporated. It has further been alleged that plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court as plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 3 lacs as additional security from the defendant, so that the amount of rent may be reduced, but the plaintiff did not issue any receipt thereof. It is alleged that after the receipt of said additional security amount, the rent was reduced to Rs. 2000/- p.m. from Rs.20,000/- p.m. It CS No. 492/20 Page 3 / 19 is also stated that as and when the premises is vacated by the defendant, it will be difficult for him to ask for refund of additional security amount. It is further stated that present suit is not maintainable as the rent is not in arrears for any month as the rent till November 2020 has been paid by defendant. It is also alleged that the objection taken by the Advocate of plaintiff in legal notice dated 01.09.2020 is wrong because the defendant never refused the plaintiff to inspect and visit the tenanted premises. Defendant has submitted that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against him and the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC
4. By virtue of said application, defendant has prayed for refund of security amount of Rs. 3 lacs along with Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff together with prayer for hearing/adjudicating the present application before considering the application u/o 12 R 6 CPC.
5. It is stated in the application that plaintiff was habitual of non- issuing receipt against the rent paid in cash. It has been alleged that defendant had paid rent from March 2020 till November 2020, but the plaintiff never issued the rent receipts with respect to the said period. It is further alleged that on the demand of plaintiff, security amount of Rs. Three Lacs was paid by defendant in cash as the plaintiff had offered to reduce the rent from Rs. 20000/- p.m. to Rs. 2000/- p.m., but the plaintiff never issued any receipt thereof.
CS No. 492/20 Page 4 / 19APPLICATION U/O XII R 6 CPC
6. In the light of unequivocal admissions on the part of defendant in his WS, the plaintiff has filed the present application under Order XII rule 6 CPC. Plaintiff has submitted that defendant in his WS has unequivocally admitted the plaintiff as his landlord as well as the existence of registered lease deed dated (18.03.2020). It is further stated that defendant in para no. 8 of reply on merits of WS, has admitted receiving of termination notice dated 17.08.2020 and in para no. 6 of reply on merits, has admitted his liability with regard to arrears of water consumption and PNG gas consumption charges. It is further submitted that the defendant has also admitted the rent @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. of the tenanted premises. Plaintiff has denied the averment made by the defendant in his WS that he had paid Rs. 3 Lacs in cash to plaintiff, as an additional security amount. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed for passing of judgment on admissions in the present suit.
7. Reply to the aforesaid application was filed on behalf of defendant, wherein, the averments of the application have been denied and dismissal of the same has been prayed. It is stated that defendant has never admitted that the lease deed was executed with the consent of defendant. It is alleged that signature of defendant was obtained under duress and pressure and without allowing the defendant to read the entire lease deed and also the copy of the same was never supplied to the CS No. 492/20 Page 5 / 19 defendant. The defendant has denied the lease deed dated (18.03.2020) being illegal. It is further stated that application u/o 12 R 6 CPC is not maintainable because merely giving possession of tenanted premises to defendant does not mean that plaintiff has right to move application u/o 12 R 6 CPC. It is also submitted that no arrears of rent are due towards defendant as the rent has already been paid in cash to the plaintiff and rather an extra security amount of Rs. 3 Lacs have already been paid in cash to the plaintiff by the defendant. It has further been stated that the rent for the month of December, 2020 was remitted through money order, but the plaintiff declined the same.
8. Arguments were heard on both the aforesaid applications on behalf of the parties and record is carefully perused. This court has also gone through the authorities mentioned hereinafter upon which defendant is relying:
I. Indu Singh Vs. Surender Kambooj & Ors. 2020(3) CLJ 532 (Del.) Delhi High Court.
II. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal Dharamshala Trust Vs. Om Prakash Verma 2014 Legal Eagle (DEL) 175 Delhi High Court.
ANALYSIS
9. Before appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer the relevant provision of law i.e Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under:
CS No. 492/20 Page 6 / 19ORDER XII RULE 6 -
6. Judgment on admissions- (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2). Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment, and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
10. It is well settled principle of law that under Order XII rule 6 CPC, the plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment on admission of facts having been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether oral or in writing. In view of the settled law, the requisite conditions for passing a judgment on admission in favour of plaintiff in a suit for possession such as the present one are:
(a) Existence of landlord-tenant relationship.
(b) The rent of the premises in question being more than Rs.3500/- per month.
(c) Determination of tenancy by a valid notice sent by the plaintiff to defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of CS No. 492/20 Page 7 / 19 Property Act.
11. The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable the parties to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief, plaintiff is entitled to on the basis of admission by the defendant. In the case of "Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. vs Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr." AIR 2005 SC 2765, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is enacted for the purpose to expedite the trials and if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute, then in such a case, in order to expedite and dispose of the matter, such admission can be acted upon.
12. It has been laid down by Hon'ble High Court of India in P.P.A. Impex Pvt. Ltd vs Mangal Sain Mittal, 166 (2010) DLT 84 that "as regards Order XII Rule 6 CPC is concerned, the Supreme Court has recommended resort to this provision to bring a quick end wherever a vexatious and false defence has been presented.". The approach to be taken while dealing with an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC should be akin to what has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mechalac Engineers & Manufactures Vs. Basic Equipment Corporation (1976) 4 SCC 687 in the context of Order XXXVII CPC with regard to granting of leave to defend in a summary suit. If the defence amounts to moonshine, it should be summarily dismissed by not granting leave to defend and by decreeing the suit forthwith. This legal CS No. 492/20 Page 8 / 19 position was further reiterated in Grammy Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs. EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. 202 (2013) DLT 756 wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that if the defence is found to be moonshine, the Court shall be justified in passing a decree on admission on the ground that the defendant has not disclosed a triable defence.
13. During the course of arguments on the application u/o 12 R 6 CPC, Ld. Counsel for defendant has, first of all, raised a dispute as to the site plan whereby he submits that he has raised a preliminary objection in the WS to the effect that the site plan is wrong as the measurement of the rooms have not been incorporated in the same. However, the same only seems to be a hollow assertion as the WS is neither supported by the so-called correct site plan on behalf of defendant nor measurement of the rooms have been mentioned in the WS anywhere. It seems that the said objection has only been raised just for the sake of it without any basis thereof. Even if it is assumed for a while that site plan is not proper, then too, this alleged omission will not make defendant entitled to possession of the suit property, when otherwise he is not entitled to do so. Moreover, there is no dispute regarding the identity of the tenanted suit property as the same has been clearly mentioned in the registered lease deed, which has been admitted in the pleadings by the defendant. Therefore, this contention raised on behalf of defendant is misconceived and is accordingly, rejected.
14. Now adverting to the requirements step-by-step for passing CS No. 492/20 Page 9 / 19 judgment on admission under Order XII rule 6 CPC in a suit for possession. The defendant in the present case has not disputed the fact that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. In fact, defendant has categorically stated in para no. 3 of preliminary objections of his written statement that as per the lease agreement, the portion given on rent to defendant was one drawing-cum-dining room, three bedrooms, kitchen, bath (WC). Further, the entire WS is full of admissions as the plaintiff has been addressed as landlord, whereas defendant has addressed himself as lessee/tenant. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that he inducted the defendant as tenant with respect to tenanted premises on 01.03.2020 and subsequently, lease deed between the parties was registered dated 19.03.2020 qua the said tenancy @ Rs. 20,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. In response, Defendant in para no. 2 of reply on merits of his WS, defendant has admitted that registered lease deed agreement was executed dated 18.03.2020, but the plaintiff / landlord failed to supply the copy of the said lease deed to the tenant / defendant. However, in the said paragraph, defendant has also stated that the registered lease deed agreement dated 18.03.2020 was executed, but in the plaint, it is mentioned as 19.03.2020 which is wrong. Plaintiff has filed copy of said registered lease deed on record and it is clear upon perusal of the same that the same was executed on 18.03.20, however, the same was got registered before Sub-Registrar IV b, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi / Delhi on 19.03.2020, thus there is no dispute about the same. The defendant in his WS has neither denied the registered lease deed dated 19.03.2020 nor has made any endeavour to deny the CS No. 492/20 Page 10 / 19 landlord-tenant relationship vis-à-vis the plaintiff. Thus, in the light of above categorical admissions on behalf of defendant in his written statement, landlord-tenant relationship stands established.
15. In addition to the above, another requirement for passing judgment on admission in a suit such as the present one is the termination of tenancy by way of a valid notice as per requirement of S.106 Transfer of Property Act. It is the case of the plaintiff that the tenancy of defendant was terminated vide notice dated 17.08.2020, but the defendant failed to abide by the said notice. Subsequently, plaintiff served the defendant with legal notice dated 01.09.2020. Perusal of the said notice reveals that the tenancy/lease has been terminated by the plaintiff by virtue of said notice. The defendant in his WS has not denied the service of said legal notice. In fact, the said legal notice was admittedly replied by the defendant dated 11.09.2020. Defendant has raised objection that he cannot be evicted from the suit property before the expiry of tenancy period, more so, as there hasn't been any default as to payment of rent by him. However, the said objection is not sustainable in the light of clause 12 of the lease deed, wherein it is specifically mentioned that, "If the Lessor wants to get the said premises vacated before expiry of eleven months, then the Lessor shall serve two months advance intimation to the Lessee". Thus, tenancy could very well have been terminated even without any default on behalf of defendant. Moreover, the said lease deed anyways got determined by efflux of time as the same was only till 31.01.2021 and there is nothing on record to suggest that the same was CS No. 492/20 Page 11 / 19 extended by the plaintiff. Further, even if it is presumed for a while that legal/termination notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was not duly served upon the defendant, then too, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), 2008 (2) SCC 728, that filing of suit is itself a notice to quit on the tenant and therefore, no notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary to enable the landlord to get the decree of possession. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder:
―In any view of the matter, it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant.
16. In view of Nopany Investments (Supra), it was held by the Hon'ble court in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF), 182 (2011) DLT 402, that even assuming that the notice of termination was not served, the tenancy shall stand terminated upon filing of the suit.
17. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that the said tenancy has validly been terminated by the plaintiff. Since, tenancy was terminated, the defendant had become an unauthorized occupant. Thus, he was under an obligation to deliver vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, as prayed by the plaintiff.CS No. 492/20 Page 12 / 19
18. Lastly, the condition which is required to be satisfied for passing judgment on admission in a suit for possession against a tenant is whether the rent of the premises in question was more than Rs.3500/- per month or not. As per the case of the plaintiff, the tenanted premises was given on rent to the defendant vide registered lease deed on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-. It is an admitted case by the defendant that rent @ Rs.20,000/- was paid for a few months and later on rent was reduced to Rs. 2000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. as he had paid Rs. 3 lacs cash as an additional security amount to the plaintiff, however, there is not even an iota of material on record to suggest that any such amount was ever paid by the defendant to plaintiff and that as a consequence rent was reduced. A discussion on the aspect as to alleged payment of Rs. 3 lacs as an additional security in cash to the plaintiff has been dealt particularly in paragraphs to follow in this judgment. Perusal of the registered lease deed clearly reveals that rate of rent agreed upon was Rs.20,000/- per month and there is ample material on record by way of admissions on behalf of defendant that the said lease deed was admittedly executed between the parties. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that in terms of the registered lease deed on record, the rate of rent qua the tenanted premises was Rs.20,000/- pm., which is way beyond Rs.3,500/- p.m. Thus, even the last condition as enumerated above, is satisfied.
19. Further, the application u/O 12 R 6 CPC has been vehemently CS No. 492/20 Page 13 / 19 opposed by the defendant by contending that there are disputed questions of fact involved in this matter which requires evidence to be led, therefore, judgment on admission can't be passed at this stage. First of all, it has been contended that the lease deed in the case in hand is illegal on account of reasons mentioned in the WS, however, this contention is without any force as no objection as to lease deed being illegal on any ground whatsoever was raised by the defendant in his reply to legal notice, which was filed much before filing his WS. It is apparent that the said objection has been raised in the WS by the defendant as an afterthought, perhaps to avoid a judgment on admission being passed against himself. Moreover, if the lease deed as alleged is/was illegal, then why did the defendant abide by the same and what made defendant pay rent @ Rs.20,000/- for few months in consequence thereof. The compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the registered lease deed as to payment of rent by defendant presumably points towards the fact that the said deed was not at all illegal. Further, if the lease deed was indeed illegal then what stopped the defendant from walking out of the same and it is beyond comprehension that despite the alleged illegality of the deed, why did the defendant still choose to remain in possession of the suit property.
Secondly, it has been contended by the defendant that copy of lease deed was not supplied to the defendant. This contention too is baseless and without merits because if that were a case, then it is inexplicable as to how defendant was complying with the lease deed with respect to payment of rent. Also, even if the said objection is CS No. 492/20 Page 14 / 19 considered by this court to be of some importance, still it would not give any right to the defendant to remain in possession of the suit property, when otherwise he is not entitled to do so. Further, even if a copy of lease deed was not supplied to the defendant, then too, the said deed being a registered document, its certified copy could have been obtained from the Sub-Registrar office. In fact, defendant has received a copy later on from the said office, which he has placed on record in support of his defence. Thus, even this aspect does not raise any disputed question of fact.
Lastly, it has been contended that the defence taken by the defendant is that after execution of registered lease deed, defendant had paid Rs. 3 Lacs in cash as an additional security amount to the plaintiff, so that the monthly rent may be reduced to Rs. 2000/- from Rs.20,000/- per month. It has also been alleged that the said additional security amount was received by the plaintiff, but no receipt was issued by him with regard to the same and this gives rise to a disputed question of fact, which warrants a trial. However, the said contention is without any force as the defendant has not placed on record even one document to substantiate his claim as to payment of Rs.3 lacs in cash as additional security to the plaintiff and it seems that the same is only a bald assertion. In fact, it has not even been alleged that the said amount was given to the plaintiff in presence of a witness. It is inexplicable to say the least and also defies logic as to why a person would pay an additional security amount to the tune of Rs.3 lacs in cash, without any documentation or any other proof of the same, more so, when it has CS No. 492/20 Page 15 / 19 already been alleged that plaintiff never issued any receipt of rents paid earlier by defendant to the plaintiff and also in the light of fact that parties were not having the best of relations. Plaintiff has categorically denied receiving any such amount as additional security. Importantly, the said contention as to payment of the alleged amount as additional security in cash to plaintiff is beyond the scope of terms and conditions of registered lease deed executed between the parties and no evidence of any oral agreement to contradict or vary the terms of said lease deed can be given and the same is hit by Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, the defendant has failed to raise any disputed question of fact in this regard too.
20. Another contention which has been raised by the defendant is as to his signature being obtained under duress and pressure. However, the said fact does not warrant too much attention of this court as the same was neither raised in reply to the legal notice by defendant nor was ever raised in the WS filed on record. This objection was raised belatedly for the first time in the reply to the application u/O 12 R 6 CPC by the defendant. Also, if at all the signatures were obtained in a manner as alleged, then why the defendant complied with the lease deed as to payment of rent @ Rs. 20,000/- p.m. and why no complaint was filed in this regard or any other legal recourse was ever taken. Thus, it seems that it is only an afterthought by the defendant, perhaps to avoid a judgment/decree on admission. Accordingly, the said contention is rejected being preposterous and without any basis.
CS No. 492/20 Page 16 / 1921. Also, perusal of the authorities relied upon by the defendant reveals that they are of no assistance to him as the same do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
22. In view of the above, it is clear that there are no disputed questions of fact with respect to the relief of possession of the suit or tenanted property and thus this court sees no reason whatsoever to lead any evidence on the aspect of possession of the said property. It is further clear that only a moonshine defence has been put forth by the defendant, whereas, the requisite conditions enumerated above for passing a judgment on admission in favour of plaintiff with respect to possession of the suit property stands fulfilled.
23. Now adverting to the contentions of defendant on his application u/s 151 CPC. It has been alleged by the defendant that he had paid Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff twice in cash towards the rent as well as towards security amount at the time of inception of said tenancy, but the plaintiff never issued receipts thereof to defendant despite his demands. It is further the contention of the defendant that he gave additional security amount of Rs. 3 Lacs in cash to plaintiff upon his asking, but again the plaintiff did not issue any receipt thereof. However, it is unbelievable to say the least that when plaintiff on earlier occasions had allegedly not issued receipts against payments of rent and security amount to defendant, then why would defendant allegedly pay such a CS No. 492/20 Page 17 / 19 huge amount of Rs. 3 lacs to plaintiff as additional security amount in cash. Also, not even a single document has been placed on record to indicate that an additional security amount of Rs. 3 lacs was ever paid by the defendant to plaintiff in cash. Moreover, any oral contention as to additional security allegedly paid in contrast to the terms and conditions of registered lease deed is hit by Section 91 and 92 Indian Evidence Act.
24. Further, it has also been argued on behalf of defendant that as the security amount has not been returned to the defendant, so there is no question of vacating the tenanted premises. However, it is worth mentioning that there is no force in the said argument and the same is legally unsustainable. It is important to mention that if defendant was seeking refund of the alleged security amount, then in such a scenario, he ought to have filed a counter claim after furnishing proper court fees upon the claimed amount or should have filed a fresh suit for recovery of alleged security amount against the plaintiff in accordance with law. However, even if the alleged furnishing of security amount by defendant to plaintiff is presumed to be correct, then too, it would not give any legal right to the defendant to remain in possession of the tenanted premises, more so, when otherwise requisite conditions for passing a decree of possession has been sufficiently fulfilled. The handing over of possession cannot be subject to payment of alleged security amount. This was held by the Hon'ble Court in the case of H.S. Bedi vs. NHAI, RFA 784/2010, CM Nos. 19620/12 & 1320/13 (DHC) by stating that a tenant has an independent remedy to recover the security, but he in no CS No. 492/20 Page 18 / 19 way can retain the possession of premises on the plea that until and unless security is refunded, possession will not be handed over. Such a retention of possession cannot be justified. Thus, this contention has no force and is rejected. Thus, no grounds for allowing the application u/s 151 CPC filed by the defendant are made out.
25. Consequently, in the light of above discussion, the application u/s 151 CPC filed by the defendant is dismissed. Further, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of tenanted premises from the defendant. Accordingly, the application u/o 12 R 6 CPC is disposed of as allowed with respect to the relief of possession of tenanted premises. Therefore, defendant is directed to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the tenanted premises bearing no. B- 5, Upper ground Floor, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 51, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that with respect to rest of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, present suit shall continue. Digitally signed by VINEET Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. VINEET KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.02.16
17:16:33
+0530
Typed to the dictation directly,
corrected and announced on (VINEET KUMAR)
16.02.2022 ADJ-01, SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
This judgment contains 19 pages.
CS No. 492/20 Page 19 / 19