Delhi District Court
Sh. A.S. Chugh (Dead) vs Ravi Bansal on 27 July, 2016
Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN, CIVIL JUDGE,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS
Suit no. 6390/16/07
Unique Case Id. no. 02402C0729892007
In the matter of
1.Sh. A.S. Chugh (dead) Through LRs a. Mrs. Hanit Mangat d/o Lt. Sh. A.S. Chugh w/o Sh. H.S. Mangat r/o C-392, Defence Colony, New Delhi b. Mrs. Rano Singh d/o Lt. Sh. A.S. Chugh w/o Sh. Ashok Jaipuria r/o 1058-D, New Friends Colony, New Delhi c. Mrs. Neetu Singh d/o Lt. Sh. A.S. Chugh w/o Sh. Analjit Singh r/o 15, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi
2. Smt. Surinder Chugh Page 1 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal w/o Lt. A.S. Chugh
3. Sh. Rakesh Chugh s/o Sh. A.S. Chugh Both at 15, Chander Load, Dehradun (Uttarakhand) ......Plaintiffs versus Ravi Bansal s/o Dr. Shyam Lal Bansal r/o H.No. 1449/13, Gali no. 8, Durgapuri Extension, Delhi - 110032 Also at--
Godown no. 2, Chugh Warehouse Compound, 483/48, 6th Milestone, GT Road Near Old Seelampuri, Delhi - 110095 .......Defendant Date of institution: 02.11.2007 Date of reservation: 06.06.2016 Date of Judgment: 27.07.2016 Order--
1. This is a suit filed for recovery of possession, mesne profits and by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. It is the case of the plaintiffs, that they are the owners of property bearing Godown no. 3 in the Chugh Warehouse Compound situated at Page 2 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal 6th Milestone, GT Road, Near Old Seelampuri, Delhi bearing municipal no. 483/48, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi measuring a total area of 1,650 sq. feet approximately. They are running their business under the partnership M/s Chugh Warehouse.
3. Plaintiffs contend that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in suit property as per lease deed dated 19.08.2000 at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,500/-. Thereafter thus was renewed as per the lease deed dated 30.09.2004 at the same rent for a period of 11 months commencing from 01.09.2004 to 31.07.2005. After expiry of the lease deed, the defendants did not vacate the suit property and thus a legal notice dated 11.05.2006 was issued upon the defendant. Since the defendants refused to pay the rent, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a civil suit against the defendants which was subsequently withdrawn on the defendant's assurance and payment of arrears of rent vide statement and order dated 16.10.2006. The defendants paid the arrears of rent in cash on 07.10.2006 for the period of 01.08.2004 to 31.10.2006.
4. The defendants stopped tendering the rent from 01.11.2006 despite repeated demands and requests made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff were thus compelled to issue a legal notice dated 17.08.2007 whereby the defendant was asked to handover peaceful and vacant physical possession to the plaintiffs on or before 31.08.2007. It is the case of the plaintiff that since 31.08.2007 the defendants have been in unauthorised and illegal occupation of the suit property and are therefore liable to pay damages at the prevailing market rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month until realisation.
Page 3 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
5. Defendant filed a written statement denying therein the averments of the plaintiff. The defendant submitted that he is an old tenant of the plaintiff and was a tenant of the plaintiff, in properties Godown no. 2 and 3, Chugh Warehouse Compound at a monthly rental of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 5,500/- respectively. It is the submission of the defendant that in July 2006 the defendant visited the plaintiffs at Dehradun and on instructions and on their behalf, on 20.07.2016 the plaintiffs' through their manager and attorney Sh. Reyaz Ahmed Khan entered into the a fresh rent agreement relating to the godowns no. 2, 3 and 4. It is the contention of the defendant, that the rent of Godown no. 2 and 3 was to be reduced to Rs. 2,800/- and Rs. 3,400/- respectively. This rent was to be applicable from November 2006 and was decreased due to fallen market rates. It is further stated that the plaintiffs' through their attorney Reyaz Ahmed also entered into an agreement to sell and purchase 1000 sq. yards of the plaintiffs' property for Rs. 20 lakhs out of which Rs. 10 lakhs was paid as part consideration and Rs. 50,000/- as security.
6. It is stated by the defendants that in order to pay the rent for the month of november 2006, the defendants paid the plaintiffs vide pay orders no. 722004, 722003, 722002 and 722001 of Rs. 3,400/-, 2,800/-, 1,800/- and 1,500/- dated 09.11.2006 issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dwarka, New Delhi. It is also the contention of the defendant that now since the rent is below Rs. 3,500/-, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and should be filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
7. Further the defendant avers that the plaintiffs had employed muscle men as security personnel who tried to forcibly evict the defendants from the Page 4 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal suit premises. It is also averred that plaintiffs are not owners of the suit property and that the site plan filed by the plaintiffs is not correct.
8. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 23.04.2008:-
(1) Whether rent of the suit premises was reduced from Rs. 5,500 per month to Rs. 2,400 w.e.f 01.11.06? OPD (2) Whether the suit is barred in view of provisions of Section 50 DRC Act? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for in the plaint? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 48,000 as arrears of rent w.e.f 01.11.2006 to 31.10.2006? OPP (5) If issue no. 4 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so at what rate? And for what period? OPP (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mesne profit? If so at what rate? And for what period? OPP (7) Relief
9. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no. 1 Sh. A.S. Chugh expired and his legal heirs, excluding the plaintiffs no. 2 and 3, Ms. Hanit Mangat, Ms. Rano Singh and Ms. Neelu Singh were taken on record.
10. In evidence, the LR of the plaintiff Mrs. Hanit Mangat examined herself as PW-1 and placed on record her testimony by was way of affidavit Ex.
PW1/A. She placed on record the following documents in support of her contentions--
Page 5
Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
Ex. PW1/1 Site Plan
Ex. PW1/2 GPA dated 27.08.2008
Ex. PW1/3 Rent Deed dated 30.09.2004
Ex. PW1/5 Resignation letter dated 05.09.2006
Ex. PW1/6 Public notice dated 11.10.2006
Ex. PW1/7 Police Complaint dated 05.10.2006
Ex. PW1/8 Plaint in suit no. 1429/06
Ex. PW1/9 Written Statement filed in suit no. 1429/06
Ex. PW1/10 Order dated 16.10.2006 in suit no. 1429/06
Ex. PW1/11 Legal notice dated 17.08.2007
Ex. PW1/12 Registered post receipt
Ex. PW1/13 Receipt of UPC
Ex. PW1/14 AD card which was duly received and acknowledged
by defendant
Mark A GPA of April, 2006
(mentioned in
affidavit as Ex.
PW1/4)
11. The defendant examined himself in evidence as DW-1 through his affidavit Ex. DW1/A and DW1/B. The defendant placed reliance on the following documents--
Mark A Photocopy of rent agreement dated 20.07.2006
Mark B Photocopy of receipt dated 07.10.2006
Mark C Letter dated 07.10.2006
Mark D Photocopy of letter dated 24.10.2006
Mark E Photocopy of cheque dated 09.11.2006
Mark F Photocopy of letter dated 15.11.2006
Page 6
Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
Mark G Legal notice dated 15.10.2007
Ex. DW1/1 Postal receipt
Ex. DW1/2 Notice to produce the document under Order 12 Rule
8 CPC
Ex. DW1/3 Reply filed on behalf of notice under Order 12, Rule
8 CPC
12.The defendant also examined Sh. Hari Prakash Chauhan as DW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A.
13.Final arguments heard. Record perused. Following is the issue wise conclusion as reached by the Court on basis of the arguments heard and available record.
Issue no. 1: Whether rent of the suit premises was reduced from Rs. 5,500 per month to Rs. 2,400 w.e.f 01.11.06?
14. Due to inadvertence it appears that the figures mentioned in the issue have been wrongly stated. The issue before this Court in respect to the suit premises, i.e. Godown no. 3, is whether the rent was reduced from Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 3,400/- w.e.f 01.11.2006. The burden to prove this issue is placed on the defendant.
15.Defendant has stated and admitted in his written statement that he had been the tenant of the plaintiffs since 19.08.2000 at the rent of Rs. 5,500/- per month. However, it is averred by the defendant that he had entered into a new lease agreement with the attorney of the plaintiff Sh. Reyaz Ahmed on 20.07.2006. As per this agreement, the rate of rent was reduced from Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 3,400/-. It is further stated by the Page 7 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal defendant that in the same transaction the defendant and Sh. Reyaz Ahmed entered into an agreement for purchase of 1000 sq. yards of the suit property for Rs. 20 Lakhs and the defendant at that time paid part consideration ('bayana') of Rs. 10 lakhs in furtherance of it.
16.It is pertinent to note that at the time when the said agreement is said to have been entered, there was litigation pending between both parties, which was not settled/compromised till October 2006. The suit previously filed by the plaintiffs Ex. PW1/8 was for recovery of possession against the defendant and was filed probably in June 2006, wherein the defendant had admittedly filed a written statement Ex. PW1/9. In this written statement, the defendant stated that the rent was fixed at Rs. 5,500/-. No mention however was made by the defendant as to the subsequent agreement entered into between the parties to renew the lease. It appears highly unlikely that the parties instead of first resolving the dispute of arrears of rent, negotiated in the midst of litigation a fresh lease agreement, which was never felt relevant to be disclosed to the Court either by the defendant or the plaintiffs.
17.Furthermore, in the statements record before the Court, the defendant paid arrears of rent upto October 2006 for rent at the rate of Rs. 5,500/-. No explanation has been forwarded as to why the agreement so entered into on 20.07.2006 was to be implementable from November 2006. Since the defendant had already negotiated that the prevailing market rate for rent to be Rs. 3,400/-, why then pay a higher rent of Rs. 5,500/- for the suit property from the period of July 2006 to October 2006. It is thus incomprehensible as to why no mention of the agreement dated 20.07.2006 was made by the defendant at any stage.
Page 8 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
18.As previously stated, it is admitted by the defendant that since induction into the tenancy, the rate of rent of the premises has been Rs. 5,500/-. During cross examination, the defendant was asked to enlist reasons for a sudden change to a lower rent, when the rent had always been fixed at Rs. 5,500/-. The defendant was unable to highlight any factors or development which could have led to this fall in rent by nearly 40 percent. Furthermore the defendant in his written statement filed in Suit no. 1429 of 2006 had stated in his written statement that the market rate of suit property was not more than Rs. 5,500/-, rent which he was already paying to the plaintiffs. This written statement was filed in months likely preceding the agreement dated 20.07.2006. It is thus mystifying as to what could have compelled the plaintiffs to negotiate a lower rate. In light of no explanation forward by the defendant, the scenario of the plaintiffs having been involved in this negotiation appears to be improbable.
19.On questioning as to whether the defendant has any documentary proof for the alleged agreement to sell, he denies in cross examination as to having filed any such document on record. The defendant has also claimed that he paid rent free security in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, however no receipt in relation to this has been attached by the defendant. Since all these activities were part of the same transaction and negotiation, it is suspicious as to why the defendant has not been able to lead/produce any evidence in relation to either of these, to establish whether in fact any such negotiations had infact taken place.
20.Moreover the rent agreement dated 20.07.2006 placed on record is a photocopy. The defendant has sought to prove the agreement by examining Sh. Hari Prakash Chauhan as DW-2, since he is stated to be a Page 9 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal witness to the said agreement. DW-2 during his cross examination affirms that he had signed on the agreement entered into between the defendant and Reyaz Ahmed. However he cannot read or write in english and thus can not tell what the agreement is about. Furthermore he states that he was never told by the defendant as to what is the rent he pays or what would be the new rent that he would be paying to the plaintiffs.
21.Furthermore the defendant in his cross examination states that at the time of negotiation for reduction in rent, Sh. Reyaz Ahmed had consulted the plaintiffs over the phone and it was only after his instructions that the agreement had been entered into. This stance of the defendant deviates from the stand held earlier, wherein the defendant claimed that Sh. Reyaz Ahmed was the attorney holder and always executed the rent agreements without the presence of the plaintiffs. Further in his written statement, it is also stated by the defendant that he went to Dehradun to negotiate the agreement with the plaintiffs, however this fact found no mention in his evidence.
22.It is stated by DW-1 during his examination that they used to pay rent by way of cash or cheque. However immediately after October 2006, rent for November 2006 was paid by the defendant vide pay orders no. 722004, 722003, 722002 and 722001 of Rs. 3,400/-, 2,800/-, 1,800/- and 1,500/- respectively. The pay orders however were returned immediately by the plaintiffs stating therein that the pay orders had been sent with a covering letter and that there were unable to decipher as to what for the payment was being made.
23.Furthermore in paragraph 2 of preliminary objections, the defendant has stated that there is an oral agreement between the parties. The defendant had stated in his written statement that the attorney of the plaintiff had Page 10 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal assured him that the lease would be extended for another three years. This had occurred way back in august 2005. An extension of the lease deed implied continuation of the same rent for the premises. Reduction of rent in a subsequent deed is highly improbable and against the market parameter.
24.Furthermore, it is submission of the plaintiffs that the general power of attorney in favour of Reyaz Ahmed clearly states that the attorney is allowed to make, sign, enter into and execute any lease or licence deed in respect of the suit property subject to prior written approval of the original plaintiffs, i.e Sh. A.S. Chugh, Mrs. Surinder Chugh and Sh. Rakesh Chugh. However no such written approval or indication consent has been shown by the defendant.
25.The burden to prove this issue had rested upon the defendant and that in light of the observations made above, the defendant has not been to prove that the rent was infact reduced as claimed. Issue thus stands decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Issue no. 2: Whether the suit is barred in view of provisions of Section 50 DRC Act?
26. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant and was also dependent on the outcome of the first issue. The DRC Act would be applicable only if the rent in question, is less than Rs. 3,500/-. Since the first issue has been decided against the defendant, i.e. the defendant has not been able to prove that the rent was reduced to Rs. 3,400/-. The rent at hand thus stands at Rs. 5,500/-. The DRC Act is thus not applicable to the present matter and consequently the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Page 11 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
27. Issue stands decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for in the plaint?
28.The burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiffs. To decide this issue, the following three things have to be established--
1. There existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant;
2. The rate of rent of the suit property was above Rs. 3,500/- and
3. The tenancy was validly terminated by the plaintiff.
29.In the matter at hand, the tenancy is an admitted fact. The defendant in his pleadings states that he is an old tenant of the plaintiff. In respect to the rate of rent, since the first issue has been decided against the defendant, there is nothing on record to disbelief the testimony of the plaintiff that the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 5,500/- for Godown no. 3. The defendant himself has admittedly paid rent for Godown no. 3 at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- till October 2006.
30. Lastly, as to whether the tenancy was validly terminated. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act states states as follows--
"106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either Page 12 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal lessor or lessee, by six months' notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy.
Every notice under this section must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property." (emphasis supplied)
31. In the instant matter, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the lease agreement between the parties had come to an end on 31.07.2005. There was no rent agreement entered into post that time period. Thus, as per the above mentioned Section, the tenancy being for a commercial purpose of storage, would be determinable by a fifteen days' notice. In the instant matter, the legal notice was issued by the plaintiffs on 17.08.2007 and therein gave time to the defendant till midnight of 31.08.2007. The plaintiffs thus gave an exact 15 day period to the defendant to vacate the property. Furthermore the legal notice Ex. PW1/11 was in writing, duly signed and delivered to the defendant. The defendant replied to this legal notice thus confirming receipt of the legal notice.
Page 13 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
32. The plaintiff has thus been able to prove all the three conditions required to recover possession. The issue is thus decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Issue no. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 48,000 as arrears of rent w.e.f 01.11.2006 to 31.10.2006? Issue no. 5: If issue no. 4 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so at what rate? And for what period?
Issue no. 6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mesne profit? If so at what rate? And for what period?
33. All the above listed issues are being taken up together as they are interlinked. Issue no. 4 however has been wrongly framed by the learned predecessor Court to the extent that in the prayer the plaintiffs have sought a decree for a sum of Rs. 66,000/- w.e.f 01.11.2006 to 31.08.2007. The issue thus stands modified to that extent.
34. The discussion on these issues follows from the decision in issue no. 3 wherein it has been established by the plaintiffs that there was a tenancy in place in favour of the defendants at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per month.
35.In the instant matter, it is stated by the plaintiffs and admitted by the defendant that the amount of rent upto 31.10.2006 was paid. The defendant further stated that for the month of November 2006 they sent rent vide pay orders no. 722004, 722003, 722002 and 722001 of Rs. 3,400/-, 2,800/-, 1,800/- and 1,500/- dated 09.11.2006 issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dwarka, New Delhi, to the plaintiffs. However this rent was refused and returned by the plaintiffs. This position is also Page 14 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal admitted by the defendants. In paragraph 8 of the written statement reply on merits, the defendant has categorically admitted that plaintiffs have refused to receive the rent for the period of arrears as claimed. Admitting thereby that the defendant had not discharged his liability to pay rent for the period w.e.f. 01.11.2006 till filing of the written statement by the defendant. It is also clear from the record that the defendant never resorted to the provision under Section 27 DRC Act for deposit of rent.
36.The plaintiffs are thus entitled to the arrears of rent from 01.11.2006 to 31.08.2007 at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per month. This comes to a total of Rs. 55,000 (Rs. 5,500 x 10 months).
37. The plaintiffs are thus entitled to rent amounting to Rs. 55,000 and not Rs. 66,000 as claimed for in issue no. 4.
38. Further since 01.08.2007 it is admitted by the defendant that he did not vacate the property and is still in possession. The tenancy of the defendant was validly terminated by a legal notice dated 17.08.2007 w.e.f 01.09.2007. The defendant thus has been in occupation of the suit premises as an unauthorized occupant. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for damages/mesne profits and the tenant would be bound to pay the market rate for such occupation of the premises.
39.In the case of Arya Orphanage v. Mr. Alfred G Wuerfel, 2009 (107) DRJ 318, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to hold that mesne profits are to be determined on account of wrongful continuation of occupation after termination of tenancy/license and it should be computed at the rate which the property might have fetched at the relevant time.
Page 15 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
40.In the case of M.C. Aggarawal v. Sahara India and Ors., 183 (2011)DLT 105, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to reiterate the same principle and held that while claiming damages/ mesne profits, a plaintiff has to prove the market rate of rent of similar properties in the locality.
41.The plaintiffs prayed for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month and damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month till the defendants vacate the suit property. The damages/mesne profits is claimed by the plaintiffs as the defendant failed to vacate and hand over the possession after termination of the licence. In the present matter the plaintiffs have not led any specific evidence in respect of this. Hence, in the absence of any specific evidence regarding this aspect, it cannot be taken that the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits/damages at the said rate. However, in the case of M.C. Aggarawal v. Sahara India and Ors., Supra, the Hon'ble High Court held that taking into account the prevailing circumstances grant the appropriate relief. In the present matter the suit property is a commercial property. In the opinion of this Court, prayer for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month and damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month appears to be excessive. In the considered opinion of this Court, damage/mesne profits is awarded at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month in respect of the entire suit property appears to be reasonable and justified. I am, therefore, inclined to grant damages/use and occupation charges to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
Page 16 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
42. Laslty, the plaintiffs have claimed interest at the rate of 24 percent per annum. The plaintiffs however have nowhere explained or led evidence to show as to why the rate of interest at 24 percent should be levied.
43. The parties were in a commercial transaction. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances in the instant case, in my view, the award of 6% interest per annum towards the arrears of mesne profits from the date of the termination of legal notice i.e. 01.08.2007 till the date of possession would be fair and reasonable to both the parties.
44. Issue no. 4, 5 and 6 thus stand decided in the aforesaid terms in favour of the plaintiffs.
Relief
45. In light of the above observations, the suit of the plaintiffs' stands decreed. The plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit property. Defendant is directed to vacate the suit property within one month from the order of this Court and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
46. Furthermore the plaintiffs are entitled to rent of Rs.55,000/- w.e.f 01.11.2006 to 31.08.2007. Plaintiffs are also entitled to mesne profits and damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month alongwith an interest of 6 percent per annum from 01.09.2006 till delivery of possession.
47.It is to be noted that the plaintiffs' had moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') whereby the defendant had been directed to deposit atleast the rent of Rs. 3,400/- per month from November 2006 till date. The amount thus already paid by the defendant is to be adjusted against the decreetal amount.
Page 17 Suit no. 6390/16/07 Sh. A.S. Chugh and Ors. v. Sh. Ravi Bansal
48.Lastly, the plaintiffs shall also be entitled to costs of the suit. Let decree sheet be prepared in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed off. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in Open Court on 27.07.2016 Sadhika Jalan CJ/East/Karkardooma 27.07.2016 Page 18