Delhi District Court
Mr. Manpreet Singh vs Mr. Vijay Bhatia on 2 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF KISHOR KUMAR, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ
(WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 613649/2016
Mr. Manpreet Singh
S/o Sh. H.S. Baweja
H-2/10, Vikas Puri
New Delhi.
...........Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Vijay Bhatia
S/o late Sh. Ved Prakash
77-B, Second Floor,
Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar,
Delhi.
..........Defendant
Date of Institution : 26.12.2016
Date of final arguments: 02.11.2021
Date of decision : 02.11.2021
Final Decision : Suit decreed
Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia
page no. 1 of 10
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of possession, recovery of rent/mesne profits/damages against the defendant contending interalia that plaintiff is the owner/landlord of property bearing No. 77-B, single storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (here-in-after be referred to as suit property). The defendant was inducted as tenant in respect of entire second floor of the suit property for 11 months, commencing from 1 st April 2015 for residential purpose only on a monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/- excluding water and electricity charges. It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendant did not adhere to the terms agreed between them and remained irregular in making the payment of rent. Upon this, plaintiff approached the defendant in the month of January 2016 and asked him to vacate the suit property on or before 1st March 2016. The defendant requested Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 2 of 10 for two-three months time to vacate the suit premises and also offered to enhance the rent by 10%. the defendant accepted the offer and permitted the defendant for next three months on enhanced rent of Rs. 12,100/- . The defendant made payment of rent till March 2016 and since thereafter, stopped making the payment. On this, plaintiff again approached defendant in the month of May 2016 and asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises but defendant did not pay any heed. Thereafter, the plaintiff got served a legal notice dated 17.10.2016 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.10.2016, terminated the tenancy of the defendant and also asked for payment of the entire arrears of rent and water and electricity charges with interest. Despite service of legal notice, the defendant did not comply with it. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming Rs. 1,15,200/- towards arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.2016 till 31.10.2016 and damages w.e.f. 1.11.2016 till filing of the suit and the notice charges. Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 3 of 10
2. The defendant appeared on summons. He filed his written statement and submitted that he had already vacated and handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises much prior to filing of present suit after clearing all dues. The plaintiff had issued a written receipt of taking possession of the premises as well as clearance of the dues. But inspite thereof, the plaintiff has filed the present suit with malafide intentions. Rest of the case of the plaintiff has been denied being wrong and incorrect.
3. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of the defendant wherein the plaintiff has re-affirmed and reiterated his case as contained in the plaint and have denied the contents of the written statement.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 4 of 10 issues have been framed for trial on dated 22.02.2018:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover amount of Rs.
1,15,200/- from the defendant on account of arrears of rent, damages and notice charges ? OPP
(ii) Whether the defendant had vacated the premises on or about 30.11.2016 after paying the entire rent and other charged ? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages @ Rs. 1,000/- per day pendente lite and future till realization of the amount ? OPP
(iv) Relief.
5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 by way of his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A. He has relied on the documents i.e. the rent agreement dated 16.05.2015 Ex.PW1/1, legal notice dated 17.10.2016 and the speed post are Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. The defendant did not come forward to cross examine plaintiff/PW1. The defendant has been proceeded against ex-parte on dated 23.09.2021 and the defence of the defendant has also been struck off. Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 5 of 10
6. No evidence has been led on behalf of the defendant.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully gone through the record. My issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 2:
(ii) Whether the defendant had vacated the premises on or about 30.11.2016 after paying the entire rent and other charged ? OPD
8. Onus of proving this issue has been on the defendant. The defendant has not led any evidence. The defendant stopped appearing in the court and he has been proceeded against ex- parte on dated 23.09.2021 and his defence has also been struck off.
9. It is seen that along with his written statement, the defendant filed a document without any date which suggests that Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 6 of 10 plaintiff had taken the possession of the suit premises from the defendant on dated 30.11.2016. This document has been disputed by the plaintiff. In the replication, the plaintiff has denied that the defendant vacated the suit premises and handed over the same to the plaintiff on 30.11.2016. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant forged and fabricated the alleged receipt.
10. On dated 14.12.2017, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted before the court that the possession of the suit premises was never handed over to the plaintiff and rather the defendant had locked the suit premises but is not residing therein. On dated 04.01.2018, defendant appeared before the court and gave statement that he had vacated the suit property and have not put his lock on the same. He did not have any objection if the plaintiff enters into the possession of the suit property after opening/breaking the lock over the suit property, if any. Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 7 of 10
11. Since, the testimony of PW1/plaintiff has remained unrebutted and unchallenged and moreover, the defendant having led no evidence, the defendant has failed to prove that he handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on dated 30.11.2016. On the other hand, the plaintiff has disputed this receipt that the same is false and fabricated. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issues No. 1 and 3:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover amount of Rs.
1,15,200/- from the defendant on account of arrears of rent, damages and notice charges ? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages @ Rs. 1,000/- per day pendente lite and future till realization of the amount ? OPP
12. Both these issues are taken up together as they are inter- connected.
Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 8 of 10
13. In discharge of proving these issues, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 by way of his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A and the documents relied by him. The plaintiff has proved his case as contained in the plaint by way of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The plaintiff/PW1 has not been cross examined on behalf of the defendant. The testimony of the plaintiff/PW1 has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, both these issues are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief.
14. In view of my discussion on issue no. 1 and 3, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and a money decree for a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/- (One lakh fifteen thousand two hundred rupees) is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on account of arrears of rent/damages and notice charges. The Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 9 of 10 plaintiff is also awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of Rs. 1,15,200/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount.
15. The plaintiff is also entitled to arrears of rent from the date of filing of the suit till 04.01.2018 @ Rs. 12,100/- per month (the date when the plaintiff received the possession of the suit premises).
16. The cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to record room.
KISHOR
KUMAR
Pronounced in the open court (Kishor Kumar)
Digitally signed
on 02.11.2021 JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (WEST)
by KISHOR
KUMAR
DelhiDate:
2021.11.02
17:29:10 +0530
Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia
page no. 10 of 10
Suit No. 613649/2016
MANPREET SINGH VS. VIJAY BHATIA
Through physical hearing
02.11.2021
Matters are taken up in compliance of order No. 623 Misc./Gaz./PDJ West/THC/Delhi 2021 dt. 23.08.2021 passed by office of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, West Dis- trict, THC, Delhi.
Present: Sh. Baljeet Singh, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant is already ex-parte.
Final arguments heard.
Be put for order at 4 PM.
(KISHOR KUMAR)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (WEST)
Delhi :02.11.2021
At 4 PM
Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 11 of 10 (KISHOR KUMAR) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (WEST) Delhi :02.11.2021 Manpreet Singh Vs. Vijay Bhatia page no. 12 of 10