Delhi District Court
Seema Ahuja vs Parvati Devi on 21 October, 2011
In the Court of Sh. Praveen Singh: Additional Senior Civil Judge
(New Delhi District), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
Suit. No. 238/09
Seema Ahuja,
W/o Sh. Lalit Ahuja.
R/o D/33, Gali No. 4,
Rajgarh Colony,
Delhi. ....................... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
Parvati Devi,
W/o Sh. Ram Dutt Upretti,
Proprietor of New Rajdhani Photostat
At: D12/1, Gali No. 1,
West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi
Also at:
Flat No. 119L,
Surya Kiran Building,
19, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi110001. .......................... Defendant.
Date of Institution : 16.11.2009.
Date of Arguments: 14.10.2011.
Date of Judgment : 21.10.2011.
Suit No. 238/09 1 of 21
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DAMAGES, ARREARS OF RENT AND
MESNE PROFIT.
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, damages, recovery of rent and mesne profit against the defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the lawful and absolute owner of property bearing Flat No. 119L, Surya Kiran Building, 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi comprising a carpet area of 120 sq. feet. The property has one office, which is in possession and control of the plaintiff. A part of the premises comprising an area of approximately 60 sq. feet, as shown in the site plan, was leased out to the defendant for a period of three years vide lease agreement dated 01.06.2006 registered with SubRegistrar VII, New Delhi vide registration No. 12425 dated 01.06.2006 in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 2074 on page 73 to 79. The defendant runs her business of photocopying from the tenanted premises in the name of New Rajdhani Photostat and is the proprietor of New Rajdhani Photostat. The lease commencing from 01.06.2006 was for a period of three years and was determining on 31.05.2009. As per the terms of said lease deed, the defendant was liable to pay monthly rent of Rs.4,500/ to the plaintiff, which was to be paid in advance by the 7th day of each calender month. The defendant used to pay rent by way of cheque drawn in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from the rent, Suit No. 238/09 2 of 21 the defendant was also bound to pay maintenance charges as per the clause 4 of the lease agreement. It is further submitted that the maintenance charges were payable on the basis of the bills raised by Surya Kiran Maintenance Society. The bills were generally raised by the Surya Kiran Maintenance Society on quarterly basis and the same were to be shared by the plaintiff and the defendant equally. Apart from the maintenance charges, the defendant was also liable to pay electricity charges on the basis of actual monthly consumption. By and with the efflux of time, as stipulated in the lease deed, the lease had been determined on 31.05.2009. Prior to the determination of the lease agreement, the plaintiff had informed the defendant that beyond 31.05.2009, the lease would not be extended any further. With the determination of the lease, the defendant was immediately bound to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the demised premises to the plaintiff as stipulated in the agreement, but the defendant chose not to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant became a tresspasser and has been in unauthorized occupation of the tenanted premises w.e.f. 01.06.2009. As per the lease deed dated 01.06.2006, if the defendant did not hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff, the defendant would be liable to pay three times of the rent last paid i.e. Rs.13,500/ per month towards unauthorized occupation charges of the tenanted premises. Since Suit No. 238/09 3 of 21 the plaintiff did not want to extend the tenancy of the defendant, she asked the defendant to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the said premises. However, the defendant on one pretext or the other refused to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 15.09.2009 through her counsel. She thereby asked the defendant to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises as provided for in the lease agreement dated 01.06.2006. The said legal notice was duly served upon the defendant through courier and registered post. In the said notice, damages amounting Rs.54,000/ were also demanded from the defendant as any further possession of the suit premises by the defendant beyond 31.05.2009 amounted unauthorized occupation and thus, the defendant was liable to pay unauthorized usage charges and illegal occupation charges @ Rs.13,500/ per month as provided in clause 7 of the lease agreement. Hence, the present suit for possession as well as for damages, mesne profits and recovery of arrears of maintenance charges.
3. The defendant on being served with the summons of the suit filed the written statement. In the written statement, a preliminary objection was taken that the defendant had already handed over the peaceful vacant possession of the flat bearing No. 119L on the mezzanine floor in the building known as Surya Kiran Building situated at 19 Kasturba Gandhi Suit No. 238/09 4 of 21 Marg, New Delhi110001 on 30.05.2009 i.e. the day of determination of the lease. It is submitted that there were no dues/ arrear towards rent on the part of the defendant. The defendant intimated the plaintiff vide letter dated 11.05.2009, that she would vacate the said premises on 30.05.2009 and also requested the plaintiff vide the same letter dated 11.05.2009 to return Rs. 9,000/, which was deposited by the defendant with the plaintiff as interest free security deposit. It is further submitted that despite handing over of the peaceful vacant possession, the plaintiff has filed the suit with the sole intention to harass the defendant. It is further submitted that upon the receipt of the legal notice dated 15.09.2009, the defendant contacted the plaintiff upon which, the plaintiff apologized and withdrew the said notice. She undertook that no further action would be taken against the defendant in future. It is further submitted that since the defendant was not in possession of the premises, there was no question of demand of mesne profits, arrears of rent etc.
4. On merits, it is denied after determination of lease, the defendant did not hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the plaintiff or that the defendant became a trespasser and had been in unauthorized occupation of the suit property. It is further submitted that on 30.05.2009, the defendant had handed over peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that it was also intimated to the plaintiff Suit No. 238/09 5 of 21 vide letter dated 11.05.2009 that she would vacate the tenanted premises and requested the plaintiff to return Rs.9,000/, the interest free security, which had been deposited by her with the plaintiff. It is denied that the defendant did not hand over the peaceful possession of the tenanted premises after determination of lease dated 01.06.2006 or that towards unauthorized occupational charges/ damages, the defendant is liable to pay three times the last paid rent to the plaintiff. It is denied that the defendant avoided to hand over the tenanted premises. It is further denied that the defendant is liable to pay illegal occupation charges @ Rs.13,500/ per month as provided for in clause 7 of the lease agreement.
5. In the replication to the written statement, the contents of the written statement are denied and the contents of the plaint are reaffirmed.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 27.09.2010:
1. Whether the defendant had handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff on 30.05.2010? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ occupation charges, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance charges, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
5. Relief.
Suit No. 238/09 6 of 21
7. It was admitted between the parties that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the premises in question and the plaintiff was the landlord of the same. It was also admitted by the parties that a lease agreement dated 01.06.2006 was executed between the parties and the lease created vide the said agreement stood determined on 31.05.2009. Therefore, the only dispute which would lead to decision of the controversies between the parties is that, whether, the defendant had handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff on 30.05.2009? The claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant did not do so. Therefore, the defendant was asked to lead her evidence first. The defendant examined herself as DW1. On the other hand, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1, Sh. Lalit Ahuja as PW2, Sh. Pritender Singh Paul as PW3, Sh. Deepak Kanda as PW4, Sh. R.K. Jain as PW5 and Sh. R.K. Singh as PW6.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully. My issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the defendant had handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff on 30.05.2010? OPD.
9. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The defendant deposed that she took the premises in question on lease vide registered lease agreement dated 01.06.2006. She further deposed that the lease was for a period of three years. She further deposed that she had handed over the Suit No. 238/09 7 of 21 peaceful possession of the tenanted premises on 30.05.2009 and she had intimated the plaintiff vide letter dated 11.05.2009 that, she would vacate the premises under lease on 30.05.2009. Vide the same letter, she also requested the plaintiff to return Rs.9,000/ which was deposited with the plaintiff as interest free security. She handed over the vacant peaceful possession to the plaintiff in the presence of her husband and the staff of the society. The copy of the letter dated 11.05.2009, alongwith postal receipts are Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B. She further deposed that when she received the legal notice dated 15.09.2009, her husband approached the husband of the plaintiff and asked the reason for illegal demand of Rs.54,000/ vide legal notice dated 15.09.2009. She further deposed that the things got materialized and the plaintiff apologized and withdrew the said notice orally and undertook that no further notices/ action would be taken.
10. During her cross examination, she deposed that as she did not know how to read and write English, she did not know the contents of the letter Ex.DW1/A. She denied that the letter Ex.DW1/A was prepared after filing of the present suit and volunteered, that when she vacated the tenanted premises, she gave it in writing in presence of four persons. The four persons were Pradeep, her husband and two other persons. The letter in question (Ex.DW1/A) was prepared by Pradeep. Pradeep worked with her husband. She did not remember the date but, the letter in question was Suit No. 238/09 8 of 21 prepared by Pradeep in May, 2009. The letter was prepared by Pradeep in the office of her son, which he was having at Surya Kiran Building, Connaught Place. The said office is the same place as that of the tenanted premises. She further deposed that she had not sent the registered post of which the receipt is Ex.DW1/B. She denied that after the lease period had expired, she requested the plaintiff to extend the lease or that on refusal of plaintiff to extend the lease, she had sent a cheque to the plaintiff through post. She deposed that Praveen Kumar Upretti is her son. She did not know the number of the tenanted premises. However, in the tenanted premises, the business under the name and style of Rajdhani Photostate and New Rajdhani Photostate was being run. She could not tell the number because, she rarely used to go to the shop and in her absence, the shop was run by her son Praveen Kumar Upretti. She deposed that she could not recognize the signatures of her son. However, she deposed that the signatures at point A on document Ex.DW1/P1 were not of her son because it was not his writing style. She deposed that she did not have any bank account at Bank of Baroda, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and that the bank account bearing no. 08230200000242 in the name of New Rajdhani Photostate with Bank of Baroda, New Delhi was not in her name. She denied that the rent for the month of March 2009, February 2008, March 2008 and May 2008 was paid by her through cheques of her account as aforesaid. She deposed Suit No. 238/09 9 of 21 that the signatures at points A and B on document Ex.DW1/P2 were not her. Similarly, the signatures at point C on document Ex.DW1/P2 were not of her son. She had never made any phone call to Seema Ahuja. She had only seen Seema Ahuja (plaintiff) once, when the tenanted premises was taken on rent. When she was confronted with para 6 of her written statement, she deposed that she was surprised because, nothing of the sort mentioned in para 6 of her written statement with regard to the plaintiff apologizing for sending the notice and withdrawing the notice, had happened. She further deposed that the possession of the tenanted premises had been handed over by her personally to the husband of the plaintiff, who had gone to the tenanted premises in the month of May 2009, but she did not remember the date. On that day, the possession of the tenanted premises was handed over to the husband of the plaintiff by handing over a letter to him. The said letter was in English but she could not recognize the same. However, the vacant physical possession of the tenanted premises was not handed over by her. She had never removed her goods from the tenanted premises. She further deposed that when she took the tenanted premises on rent, only the business of photocopying was being run. The other businesses such as spiral binding, fax and STD etc. were started about twothree years back. The visiting card Ex.DW1/P3 was not of her business. She did not remember the telephone numbers installed at the tenanted premises. She did not know Suit No. 238/09 10 of 21 whether the telephone no. 41510602 was installed in the tenanted premises in her name or not. She had no explanation why the telephone no. 41510602 was still in existence in the tenanted premises and the last bill with respect to the same was raised in her name in November, 2010. She could not say if the receipt Ex.DW1/P3 was of her shop or not. She had no knowledge about telephone no. 9350564613. She denied that she had deposed falsely that she had handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff.
11. On the other hand, plaintiff appearing as PW1 deposed that despite the determination of the lease dated 01.06.2006, the defendant did not hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises and instead, she is still running business in the name and style of Rajdhani Photostat and New Rajdhani Photostat.
12. During her cross examination, she deposed that property in question was rented out to defendant but it was the son of the defendant, who was doing work from there. Son of defendant was working in the suit property on behalf of the defendant. She did not remember if, there was any board of the defendant at the suit property. She came to know that defendant was still running her business from the suit property through her visiting card Ex.DW1/P3. She did not gain any personal knowledge by visiting the suit property from the day when lease agreement entered into between her and the defendant as she knew about the fact of defendant running her business Suit No. 238/09 11 of 21 from the suit property. She denied that the peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises was handed over to her by the defendant. She denied that after the determination of the original lease agreement Ex.PW1/1, through an oral agreement, the suit premises was leased out to son of the defendant.
13. PW2 also deposed that the defendant still runs her business from the premises in question in the name of New Rajdhani Photostat and is the proprietor of New Rajdhani Photostat. He further deposed that in June 2009, when he alongwith Seema Ahuja went and asked the defendant to hand over the possession of the suit property. The defendant and her inlaw asked for some time to hand over the possession. However, her son Parveen Upretti refused to hand over the possession as he needed a further extension of lease for three years. Subsequently, in July 2009 and August 2009, request was again made to the defendant and Parveen Upretti to hand over the possession but they refused to do so.
14. During his cross examination, he deposed that at the suit property, the business was being run by the defendant and her son. After the expiry of the lease deed, he had regularly requested the defendant, her son and her husband to hand over the possession of the suit property. He denied that after the expiry of the lease deed in favour of the defendants, he had orally let out the property to the son of the defendant on an oral agreement.
15. PW3 Pritender Singh Paul deposed that he had an office in the same Suit No. 238/09 12 of 21 building where the defendant runs her business of photostat and fax. He deposed that he was the witness to the lease deed between the parties. Lease deed Ex.PW1/1 as executed between the parties, bore his signatures at point A. He further deposed that after the determination of the lease, the defendant did not hand over the suit premises to the plaintiff and has been in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises. From the premises in question, she has been running her business through her son Parveen Upretti. She still continues to run the same business.
16. During his cross examination, he deposed that the property was let out through his mediation. The negotiations had taken place with Sh. Ram Dutt Upretti. At the time of negotiations, the defendant, her husband and the plaintiff and her husband were present. He further deposed that he was informed by the plaintiff that even after the expiry of lease deed, the defendant had not handed over the possession of the suit premises.
17. PW5 R.K. Jain, Spl. Assistant from Bank of Baroda, K.G. Marg, Surya Kiran Building deposed that he had brought the summoned record i.e. account opening card, which is Ex.PW5/1. The same bore the signature of Parveen Upretti at point A and that of defendant at point B. He had also brought the cheque bearing no. 885758 dated 26.05.2008, drawn in favour of Seema Ahuja, the plaintiff, on Bank of Baroda, K.G. Marg Branch for a sum of Rs.4500/. The same bore the signature of one of the account holders i.e. Suit No. 238/09 13 of 21 Sh. Parveen Upretti at point A. The cheque is Ex.PW5/2. He had also brought cheques bearing no. 885759 dated 26.05.2008, 878536 dated 01.02.2008 and 878537 dated 01.03.2008 drawn in favour of Seema Ahuja, the plaintiff, on Bank of Baroda, K.G. Marg Branch for a sum of Rs.4500/ each which bore the signature of one of the account holders i.e. Sh. Parveen Upretti at point A. The cheques are Ex.PW5/3 to Ex.PW5/5. He had also brought the print out of bank account statement of M/s New Rajdhani Photostate of a/c no. 06230200000242. The same is Ex.PW5/6. A letter dated 04.08.2011 by Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda, K.G. Marg Branch is Ex.PW5/7. The certificate under 65B of Evidence Act as well as Banker's Book Evidence Act dated 10.09.2011 is Ex.PW5/8.
18. PW6 Sh. R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd deposed that he had brought a certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act . The same is Ex.PW6/1. He had also brought scanned copy of subscriber enrollment form of Parvati Devi. The documents pertaining to phone number 01141510602 showing activation, deactivation and our internal communication for collecting this detail is Ex.PW6/3 (colly). The last bills as raised upon this telephone number are Ex.PW6/4 to Ex.PW6/8. The client summary is Ex.PW6/9. He further deposed that all these documents bore the signatures of Sh. Deepak Kanda, whose signatures he identified.
19. From the above evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that as Suit No. 238/09 14 of 21 alleged by the defendant, she had not handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff. I say so because first of all, the claim of the defendant is that she sent the letter Ex.DW1/A to the plaintiff showing her intentions to hand over the vacant peaceful possession. The letter Ex.DW1/A is allegedly dated 11.05.2009. However, during her cross examination, she deposed that she did not know what was written in letter Ex.DW1/A. Surprisingly, she volunteered that the letter was given in presence of four persons when she vacated the tenanted premises. She also deposed that DW1/B is the postal receipt through which DW1/A was sent. It falsifies her stand that the letter was sent to the plaintiff on 11.05.2009. Therefore, it is highly probable that no such letter was sent by the defendant. Furthermore, she deposed during her cross examination that she has personally handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the husband of the plaintiff by handing over a letter to him. However, the vacant physical possession of the tenanted premises was not handed over by her. She had not removed her goods from the tenanted premises. This clearly shows that as the defendant had never removed her goods from the tenanted premises, she had never handed over the vacant physical possession to the plaintiff. It is to be seen that the defendant had deposed that she had handed over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff in presence of the staff of the society. These could have been the independent Suit No. 238/09 15 of 21 witnesses to such handing over of the peaceful vacant possession. However, the defendant despite various opportunities failed to bring these witnesses on record. Also noticeable is the fact, that the defendant has admitted receiving the legal notice dated 15.09.2009, which is Ex.PW1/4. However, the defendant while appearing as DW1 deposed that when she received the legal notice dated 15.09.2009, her husband approached the husband of the plaintiff in person and asked the reason for illegal demand of Rs.54,000/ vide the said notice. As she was not in possession of the tenanted premises, things materialized and the plaintiff apologized and withdrew the said notice orally and undertook that no further action would be taken. This fact was also stated by her in para 6 of her written statement. When she was confronted with para 6 of her written statement, she was shocked and stated that nothing of this sort had ever happened. Therefore, when after receiving the notice, the defendant neither approached the plaintiff nor sent any reply to the plaintiff. It is highly probable that she did not do so because the contents of the notice were true and correct. Therefore, I find that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram, 1989, RCR 44, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against the defendant that as she was liable for the payment as demanded in the notice, she did not send a reply to the same. I accordingly hold that the defendant has failed to prove that she has handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to Suit No. 238/09 16 of 21 the plaintiff. On the contrary, it stands proved that she failed to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff on 30.05.2009 or on any date thereafter.
20. It is also to be noticed that during the cross examination of the plaintiff, the defendant came up with a new stand. She stated that after she had handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff, the plaintiff vide an oral agreement let out the premises to her son. This stand was taken by the defendant in order to show that the defendant was not in possession of the tenanted premises but it was in possession of her son, who had been let out this premises after the defendant handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff. However, apart from this oral evidence, the defendant has not brought forth anything on record to show that the plaintiff had relet the premises in question to her son. On the contrary, the plaintiff by the testimony of PW5 has brought on record a document Ex.PW5/1. This is an account opening card. The account was opened in the name of new Rajdhani Photostat. The account opening card was signed by the defendant as proprietor of New Rajdhani Photostat. Vide the document Ex.DW1/P3, it is shown that the business in the tenanted premises is still being run under the name and style of Rajdhani Photostat. Ex.DW1/P3 is dated 19.02.2010 i.e. after the date of determination of lease on 30.05.2009. Even the testimony of PW1, that the Suit No. 238/09 17 of 21 business under the name and style of Rajdhani Photostat is being carried out in the tenanted premises, has been unrebutted. It is also to be noticed that during her cross examination, the defendant has stated that the letter Ex.DW1/A was prepared at the office of her son, which he was running at Surya Kiran Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. She further deposed that the office of her son is at the same place where the tenanted premises situates. Had it been the case that after the termination of the lease agreement and handing over of the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had relet the premises in question to the son of the defendant, there would have been no occasion that the son of the defendant being running his office from the tenanted premises prior to himself becoming the tenant in the same. I, therefore, find that it is highly probable that the defendant even after determination of lease did not hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff and in order to create a false defence; she created a story that after the plaintiff was handed over of the vacant possession of the premises in question, the plaintiff relet the tenanted premises to her son who carried on the business under the name and style of New Rajdhani Photostat. Therefore, I find that the defendant has failed to prove that she has handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff on 30.05.2009. I further find that the defendant has created a false story that after handing over the possession of Suit No. 238/09 18 of 21 the tenanted premises to the plaintiff, the plaintiff relet the premises in question to the son of the defendant. In these circumstances, the issue no. 1 is accordingly decided against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed for ? OPP.
21. There is no dispute that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated on 30.05.2009 and that the defendant was bound to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff on 01.06.2009. As it has been proved that till date the defendant has not handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for. The issue no. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ occupation charges, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
22. As while deciding the issues no. 1 and 2, it has been found that despite determination of lease, the defendant did not hand over the vacant physical possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff, I find that the defendant is in unauthorized occupation of the tenanted premises w.e.f 01.06.2009. As per clause 7 of the lease agreement, if on expiry of the lease, the lessee i.e. the defendant failed or neglected to hand over the demised premises to lessor i.e. the plaintiff, the lessee i.e. the defendant would be liable to pay the damages, for unauthorized use and occupation of Suit No. 238/09 19 of 21 the premises, calculated at the rate of three time of the last paid rent. The rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.4,500/ per month. Thus, the three times of Rs4,500/ comes to Rs.13,500/. This is what the plaintiff has demanded. Even otherwise, the defendant in her cross examination had admitted that the rent for a similar property in the same locality would be around Rs.20,000/ per month. Considering the same, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to damages and occupation charges @ Rs.13,500/ per month from 01.06.2009 till the date when vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises is handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance charges, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
23. The plaintiff appearing as PW1 deposed that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.250/ per month towards maintenance charges since June 2009 till the vacation of the suit premises. This testimony of the plaintiff has been unrebutted and therefore, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.250/ per month towards maintenance charges w.e.f. 01.06.2009 till the date the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises is handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. RELIEF:
24. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant Suit No. 238/09 20 of 21 is hereby ordered to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises i.e. flat bearing No. 119L on the mezzanine floor in the building known as Surya Kiran Building situated at 19 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi110001. The defendant is further directed to pay to the plaintiff damages/ mesne profits @ Rs.13,500/ per month from 01.06.2009 till the date the vacant peaceful possession is handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant is further directed to pay Rs.250/ per month towards maintenance charges to the plaintiff w.e.f 01.06.2009 till the date the vacant peaceful possession is handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the (PRAVEEN SINGH) open court on 21.10.2011 Additional Senior Civil Judge, (This judgment contains twenty one (New Delhi District), New Delhi. pages and each page bears my signatures.) Suit No. 238/09 21 of 21