Delhi District Court
Shri Hari Singh vs Shri Ram Nath on 10 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE02, DISTRICT
(NORTH), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 205/06
Unique ID No. 02401C006426052003
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. Shri Hari Singh
2. Shri Suraj Prakash
Both sons of Late Chaudhary Tara Chand
Both R/o. WZ636, Nangal Raya
New Delhi
...........Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Shri Ram Nath
(Since Deceased Through LRs)
1. Shri Surinder Kumar
2. Shri Sudhir Kumar
(Both sons of Late Shri Ram Nath)
R/o WZ1646D, Nangal Raya
New Delhi - 110046
3. Shri Rajesh Kumar
(son of late Shri Ram Nath)
R/o Plot No. 38, Pratap Nagar
New Delhi
4. Smt. Santosh Rani
W/o Shri Darshan Lal
D/o Late Shri Ram Nath
R/o 517/13, Krishana Nagar
Near Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar City, Punjab
5. Smt. Neeta
Suit No. 205/06 1
W/o Shri Mahender Pal Mago
D/o Late Shri Ram Nath
R/o B56, Sharda Puri
Near Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi - 110015
..........Defendants
Date of institution of the Suit: 04.07.2003
Date on which judgment was reserved: 06.09.2012
Date of announcement of Judgment: 10.09.2012
SUIT FOR POSSESSION/EJECTMENT, RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AND MESNE
PROFITS
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiffs Sh. Hari Singh and Sh. Suraj Prakash against Sh. Ram Nath defendant seeking the following reliefs
a) That a decree of ejectment/possession be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendant in respect of plot of land measuring about 295 sq. yards being the part of khasra no.
632/462/176, Nangal Raya, New Delhi and municipal number WZ1646D, Nangal Raya, New Delhi more conspicuously shown within red lines in the plan attached with the direction to the defendant to remove the construction made thereupon if he so desires.
b) That a decree of Rs.2200/ be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendant towards arrears of rent for the period 1.8.03 to Suit No. 205/06 2 30.6.03 along with interest @15%p.a. till the date of recovery.
c) That a decree for a sum of Rs. 450/ be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant on account of damages and mesne profits for the period 1.7.03 to the date of filing of the suit and enquiry be instituted under order 20 rule 12 CPC and thereafter further decree for period pendent lite and future till the defendant actually vacate and hand over the physical vacant possession of the plot in question to the Plaintiffs @Rs.100/ per day or on such rate which this Hon'ble Court may arrive after holding the enquiry. The plaintiffs undertake to pay the deficient court fee at the time of passing of the decree.
d) That cost of the present proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendant.
e) Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendant.
2. Plaintiffs' Case The Plaintiffs are real brothers who inherited plot of land measuring about 295 sq. yards being the part of khasra no. 632/462/176, Nangal Raya, New Delhi and municipal number WZ1646D, Nangal Raya, (hereinafter referred to as the suit plot) from their father Late Tara Chand. Late Tara Chand let out the suit plot to the defendant with the permission to raise construction on the said plot of land for his Suit No. 205/06 3 residence. Defendant raised construction and started residing there with his family. The tenancy was oral and last paid rent was Rs.200/. The defendant only paid rent upto 31.07.2002 and a sum of Rs.2200/ had become due as arrears of rent. Legal notice dated 26.04.03 was got issued and sent by registered A.D. and U.P.C. demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy by 30.06.2003. Defendant sent false reply dated 29.05.03 stating that payment upto November 2002 had been made and cheque of Rs. 1,200/ was enclosed alongwith the reply. The cheque was not encashed by the plaintiffs as it was not the entire arrears of rent. Since defendant was unauthorised occupant of the suit plot and had not vacated the same despite legal notice, therefore plaintiffs filed the present suit.
3. Case of the Defendant Defendant took various preliminary objections. Defendant alleged bar of section 50 DRC Act, suppression of material facts by the plaintiffs, absence of cause of action, nonjoinder of necessary parties and bar due to principle of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and bar of special enactment. On merits, the defendant admitted that the plaintiffs were brothers but denied that the suit plot had been inherited by them. The suit plot belonged to Mehar Chand and after his death, the same was inherited by all his legal heirs, including the father of the plaintiffs and as no partition ever took place between the legal heirs of Sh. Mehar Chand, therefore plaintiff's father had no right to execute the will. Rent had been paid by defendant in cash from August 2002 to November 2002 in presence of witnesses but plaintiff did not issue receipts. Receipt of notice dated 26.4.2003 is admitted but Suit No. 205/06 4 is claimed to be false and reply thereto was also sent. Along with reply, a cheque for a sum of Rs.1200/ was also sent for the months of December 2002 to May 2003. Money order for June and July 2003 was also sent and was accepted. Money orders for August 2003 and September 2003 were received back with the report of refusal. Defendant alleged that subsequent acceptance of rent by the plaintiffs showed that plaintiffs wanted to treat defendant as tenant. In the money orders, the defendant had also stated that if there were arrears to be paid, then he may be informed about the same. The plaintiffs wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 200/ to Rs. 5000/ which was not acceptable to the defendant and this was why the plaintiffs had filed the present suit. Defendant was not unauthorised occupant and also not in arrears of rent. The defendant had only been rented out land and defendant raised structure thereon from his own funds and perks. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be thus dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Replication Plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint while denying the contents of the written statement. More particularly, it was denied that bar of section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act applied. It was stated that defendant had no right to challenge the title of the plaintiffs in view of section 116 of the Evidence Act, defendant had been inducted into the suit plot by Late Tara Chand and rent had been paid to Sh. Tarachand and thereafter to the plaintiffs, money order for June and July 2003 was received without knowing the contents and returned vide bank draft dated 18.08.03.
5. Issues Suit No. 205/06 5 Vide order dated 24.11.03, the following issues were framed in this suit
1. Whether the present suit is barred under section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD
2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable or bad for nonjoinder or misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD
3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable and barred by the principle of waiver/estoppel and acquiescence and by special enactment? OPD
4. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of possession/ejectment as prayed? OPP
5. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of damages/mesne profit as prayed, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP
6. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any interest on arrears of rent, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP
7. Relief.
6. Evidence The case was set for evidence and plaintiff no. 2 examined himself as PW1 and Sh. Virender Singh, an owner of a plot in the neighbourhood of the suit plot as PW2. Both witnesses were crossexamined by the defendant. Thereafter, defendant examined himself as DW1 and was subjected to crossexamination.
7. Final Arguments Arguments were advance by ld. Counsel for the parties. I have heard and contemplated upon the arguments of the ld counsel, perused the record and the case law. My issuewise findings are as follows Issue no. 1 and 3
1. Whether the present suit is barred under section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD 3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable and barred by the Suit No. 205/06 6 principle of waiver/estoppel and acquiescence and by special enactment? OPD
8. The admitted case is that the defendant occupying the suit land as a tenant. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was let out an open plot with permission to the defendant to raise construction on the said plot for the purpose of his residence. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that since it was only the open plot of land which was given on rent, section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act did not have any application to the facts of the case since the same did not come within the definition of 'premises' as provided under section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Reliance was placed on 1996 II (Delhi) 309 S. Ajit Singh versus Smt. Ram Swaroopi Devi wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that garden grounds or outhouses independently would not constitute premises and an open plot of land with tin shed would not be premises.
9. On the other hand, ld counsel for the defendant placed strong reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 1 SCC138 A. Satyanarayan Shah versus M. Yadgiri wherein it was held that the term 'building' had to be interpreted liberally and not narrowly and on (1996) 6 SCC 342 Ashok Kapil versus Sana Ullah (Dead) and Others where it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even a roofless structure could be regarded as a building. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant taking aid of the expressions used in the translated copy of the rent agreement (Ex.PW1/1) placed on record by the plaintiff, that the agreement mentioned clearly that boundary walls/four enclosure walls were set up along with electrical fittings and even if there was no roof thereon, the same Suit No. 205/06 7 was still a building/premises and section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act would bar the civil court's jurisdiction and the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff was to file an eviction petition before the Ld. Rent Controller.
10. At first blush, the arguments of ld counsel for the defendant appear persuasive. However, the matter must be closely scrutinized. In the written statement, there is a clear admission by the defendant that in paragraph 5 in reply on merits that only land was rented out to the defendant and defendant raised construction thereon from his own funds and perks. Further, the defendant as DW1 in his crossexamination deposed as follows "..It is correct to suggest that I was given vacant plot of land covered by boundary walls and no construction were existing on the plot at the time of letting out the same to me.."
The witness again admitted as follows in further crossexamination "..It is correct that at the time of letting out the suit premises there (sic) suit premises was covered with boundary wall and electricity connection was also existing. It is correct to suggest that at the time of letting out the suit premises, the suit premises was a vacant land.."
11. Section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, reads as follows :
"PREMISES' means any building or part of a building which is or is intended to be let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, and includes, (i) the garden, grounds and outhouses if any, appertaining to such building or part of the building; (ii) any furniture Suit No. 205/06 8 supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of the building; but does not include a room in a hotel or lodging house.
12. I am in due deference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the defendant however, the same are distinguishable on facts; in (2003) 1 SCC 138 the facts were that there was a wooden structure, which was in the nature of a permanent structure and had walls and roof and though they were made of wood, yet it was held that the same would fall within the definition of building. It was held that the term 'building' as defined ought to be so interpreted as to include therein a structure having some sort of permanency and capable of being used for residential or nonresidential purpose. In (1996) 6 SCC 342, at the time when the tenant vacated the premises, the building had been a roofed structure, but subsequently the landlord had removed the tin roofs himself and it was held that no person could not take advantage of his own wrongs, it was in these circumstances that the roofless structure was held to be a building, in fact it was specifically noted that outside the definition of section 3 of the U.P. rent law, even roofless structures are, sometimes, used as buildings in certain circumstances. The circumstances therein have been detailed above. In the present case, no such special circumstances exist and defendant clearly admits that he was only given on rent the plot of land having boundary wall and electricity connections. Ex. PW1/1 duly proved by the plaintiff also clearly provides that what was rented out was an open plot of land with boundary walls and electricity connections, and permission was granted to defendant to build two rooms and make the suit property 'resideable'. Suit No. 205/06 9 There was admittedly no roof thereon.
13. In Bal Kishan Goel vs Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., 69 (1997) DLT 968 it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the construction of a building or a structure on the plot of land subsequent to the letting out of the land cannot bring it under the definition of premises.
In Gobind Sahai vs Narain Dass And Ors. ILR 1972 Delhi 55 while dealing with the question as to whether an open piece of land containing boundary walls or walls around but without any roof and without any other structure can, as a matter of law, constitute premises, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi laid down some guidelines, and pertinent to the present case are the following guidelines
a) The existence of boundary walls is not decisive of the matter as they may be erected to demarcate the boundaries of the land or to support a shed or a roof or for any other purpose.
b) A roofless structure would ordinarily not constitute a building unless it is established as a fact that the same was capable of being and was intended to be used as such without a roof, for example, an open air restaurant, a swimming pool etc.
c) The erection of superstructures by a tenant after the letting is irrelevant for determination of the question as to whether what had been let out by the landlord constitutes premises.
14. In the present case, it is not the case that the roofless structure was to be used without a roof, in fact in order to make the suit property 'resideable' defendant Suit No. 205/06 10 was given the liberty to construct rooms.
The suit property does not constitute 'premises' within the meaning of the word as provided under section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and thus the present suit is not barred by section 50 of the said Act.
15. With respect to issue no. 3 again so far as it concerns bar of special enactment, i.e. the Delhi Rent Control Act, the same is decided against the defendant. Regarding the defence of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence, the defendant pleaded that though the plaintiff had allegedly terminated the tenancy from June 2003, the plaintiff had subsequently accepted rent upto July 2003 showing that the plaintiff wanted to treat the defendant as tenant and notice to quit stood waived. In his crossexamination, PW1 admitted that money order for a sum of Rs. 400/ was received by his brother Sh. Hari Singh.
16. The plaintiff on the other hand, in the replication had stated that Rs. 400/ sent purportedly as rent for the month of June and July 2003, was sent by money order which the plaintiff received without knowing the contents and was returned to the defendant vide bank draft no. 120466 dated 18.08.03 through the counsel of the plaintiff. It was argued by ld counsel for the plaintiff that prior to determining the tenancy vide legal notice the plaintiff used to issue rent receipts and that defendant as DW1 had admitted that the plaintiffs had issued the defendant rent receipt only upto July 2002. DW1 denied the suggestion that rent of Rs.400/ tendered by him to the plaintiffs was received back by him in form of demand draft which was marked as Mark 'A' however, DW1 admitted that the address mentioned in the notice mark Suit No. 205/06 11 'B' was his correct address. DW1 denied that he received the notice dated 21.08.2003 through postal receipt mark C along with the demand draft. The postal receipt in original is Mark 'C' and can be relied upon, particularly in view of the fact that the defendant admits the address in mark 'B' was the correct address. A presumption arises that the notice sent by registered post was duly served upon the defendant as per section 27 of the General Clauses Act. It also becomes clear that the defendant denied receipt thereof for the sake of merely denying the claim of the plaintiff. Even otherwise, it was rightly pointed out by ld counsel for the plaintiff that after issuance of notice to quit, mere receipt of rent would not ipsofacto prove renewal of the lease. Reliance was placed by the plaintiff on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2000 I AD (Delhi) 699 for the aforesaid proposition and the same is applicable to the present case. Plaintiff exhibited and proved the legal notice dated 26.04.2003 as Ex. PW1/12, postal receipt as Ex. PW1/13, UPC as Ex. PW1/14. The receipt of the notice is admitted by the defendant, thought the contents thereof are denied. The copy of the said reply was exhibited by the plaintiff as PW1/15. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs had accepted rent and waived the notice especially since after service of the legal notice in April 2003, the present suit was filed soon thereafter in July 2003.
Onus to prove both the aforesaid issues was on the defendant. Defendant has failed to discharge the onus. The issues 1 and 3 are thus decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 2 Whether the present suit is not maintainable or bad for non Suit No. 205/06 12 joinder or misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD
17. It is the case of the defendant that the suit property belonged to Sh. Mehar Chand and was inherited by all his sons i.e. Bhagwan Dass, Tara Chand, Munshi Lal and Girwar Singh, who were all sons of Sh. Mehar Chand and that no partition had taken place between the legal heirs therefore the plaintiff's father had no right to execute a will. It was claimed that Sh. Girwar Lal had earlier filed an eviction petition against the defendant which was withdrawn. The suit was thus claimed to be bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. This argument of the defendant is untenable in view of the settled position of law under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides as under
116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property;
18. The defendant in his crossexamination admitted that plaintiffs issued the defendant rent receipt until July 2002 and also that they used to issue rent receipts whenever he paid rent to them. Not only this, a specific question in this regard was put by ld counsel for the plaintiff to which the defendant replied as follows "Q. Is it correct that after the demise of Tara Chand his sons namely Sh. Hari Singh and Suraj Prakash were dealing with you in the capacity of plaintiffs and Suit No. 205/06 13 landlords?
A. The said statement is correct however one Mr. Lachu Singh was also used to issue rent receipts to me."
19. Plaintiffs proved the original registered will of their father as Ex. PW1/2. Even if the contention of the defendant be considered for the sake of arguments that the suit property could not have devolved upon the plaintiffs by way of will since their father was only one of the legal heirs of the admitted owner Sh. Mehar Chand, i.e. grandfather of the plaintiffs, the fact remains that the plaintiffs are still successors ininterest of the suit property and have been dealing with the defendant admittedly as landlords. In any case, if there is any grievance in this regard, the only persons competent to agitate the issue, if at all, would be the other legal heirs and not the defendant. The defendant had been tendering rent to the plaintiffs. Section 116 of the Evidence Act is squarely applicable and the defendant is debarred from denying the title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the other legal heirs of Sh.Mehar Chand were neither necessary parties nor proper parties in the present suit.
Accordingly, issue decided against the defendant.
Issues 4 and 5, Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of possession/ejectment as prayed? OPP 5. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of damages/mesne profit as prayed, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP
20. These issues are taken up together being interconnected. The plaintiffs have Suit No. 205/06 14 proved the landlordtenancy relationship which existed between the plaintiffs and defendant. Plaintiffs have also proved that by virtue of Ex. PW1/1 an open plot of land was let out to the defendant therefore the bar of section 50 Delhi Rent Control Act does not apply. Ex. PW1/1 is not a registered document and is only for a period of 11 months, meaning thereby that thereafter, in absence of any fresh written rent agreement between the parties, the tenancy was oral and from monthto month. Plaintiff has also proved the legal notice dated 26.04.2003 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1800/ and also to vacate the suit plot by 30 June 2003, as Ex. PW1/12, postal receipt as Ex. PW1/13, UPC as Ex. PW1/14. Reply thereto dated 29.05.2003 was exhibited by plaintiffs as Ex. PW1/15 and by defendants as Ex. DW1/A. The site plan has been proved by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/11 which is not disputed. Defendant has not been able to prove that the legal notice was ever waived nor has the defendant been able to prove that arrears as per demand of the plaintiff were paid. Therefore, the plaintiffs have discharged the burden of proving that they are entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property. The defendant (since expired and through his Legal heirs) may remove any structures which have been made on the plot of land by him at his own costs.
21. With regard to issue of damages/mesne profits, the plaintiffs have claimed Rs. 450/ for the period 01.07.03 till the filing of the suit and further damages/mesne profits at Rs. 100/ per day till the actual vacant possession of the suit property is handed over to the plaintiffs. To discharge the onus of proving this issue, plaintiffs Suit No. 205/06 15 examined Sh. Virender Singh as PW2 who claimed in his affidavit by way of evidence that the suit property could fetch a sum of Rs. 5000/ per month in the year 2003. This statement does not have any evidentiary value being merely an opinion and the witness is not an expert. However, PW2's testimony that he had given his premises which was in the neighbourhood of the suit plot and admeasuring about 1500 sq. yards on rent of Rs. 10,000/ per month can be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the prevailing rate in the market. He admitted that no government department had done the valuation but the rate was decided between himself and the tenant. The premises was given on this rate of rent by PW2 in 1996 but the witness does not claim that the rent has increased neither does any such statement come out in the crossexamination. The suit plot admeasures 295 square yards. Going by the testimony of PW2, the suit plot could fetch at least a sum of Rs. 2000/ per month if let out in the open market. Thus, I hold that the Plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2000/ per month from the date of filing of the present suit till the actual, vacant and physical possession of the suit plot is handed over to the plaintiff. Plaintiffs are also entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the pendent lite and future mesne profits awarded.
Thus, I hold in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in respect of Issue no.4 and 5.
Issue no. 6 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any interest on arrears of Suit No. 205/06 16 rent, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP
22. Regarding the issue of arrears of rent, it is admitted that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/ per month. Defendant claimed that he had paid rent to Plaintiff no.1 in cash for the period August 2002 to November 2002 but despite requests, no rent receipt was issued. Further, in reply to the legal notice Ex. PW1/12, the defendant had sent a cheque of Rs. 12,00/. Defendant stated that money order of Rs. 400/ was also sent to the plaintiffs as rent for June and July 2003 and even in August and September 2003, money orders were sent but the same were received back with the endorsement of refusal by the postal authorities. Defendant relied on money order Ex. DW1/C, photocopy of money order dated 03.07.2003 as Mark A, postal receipt of money order dated 19.08.2003 as Ex. DW1/E, and postal receipt of money order dated 23.09.2003 as Ex. DW1/F and refusal of money order as Ex. DW1/G. Plaintiff on the other hand argued that in the crossexamination, the defendant clearly admitted that the plaintiffs always used to issue rent receipts when defendant paid rent to them and that the plaintiffs had issued rent receipt upto July 2002. The defendant had also deposed in crossexamination that he did not demand rent receipt in writing for the period of August 2002 to November 2005 in writing. The cheque Ex. DW1/P2 was put to the defendant who stated that it was the same cheque that was issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1200/ only. Obviously, this cheque was never encashed by the plaintiff. The defendant has not been able to prove that the payment for the months of August to November 2000 was done by the defendant, if the same had been done, the Suit No. 205/06 17 plaintiffs would have issued rent receipts and if they would not have issued rent receipts, then the defendant could have demanded them to do so in writing, which was not done. Mere allegations that oral requests were made do not stand proved and must be disbelieved. Thus, the plaintiffs have been able to establish that they are entitled to recovery of arrears or rent from 01.08.2002 till 01.07.2003 at the rate of rent of Rs.200/ per month (Rs. Two Hundred), which comes to a total of Rs. 2200/. Plaintiffs claim interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Plaintiffs have not led any evidence to prove that it was agreed in writing or orally between the plaintiffs and the defendant that in case of default in payment, the plaintiffs would be entitled to interest on the arrears, therefore, the plaintiffs failed to discharge their onus and are not entitled to interest on the arrears.
Thus, I hold that Plaintiffs are entitled to the arrears of rent for the period 01.08.2002 till 01.07.2003 amounting to Rs. 2200/ however, Plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest thereon. Issue decided accordingly.
Issue no.7 Relief
23. In view of my aforesaid discussion and issuewise findings, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of possession of the suit plot i.e. plot measuring 295 sq.yards, part of Khasra no. 632/462/176, Nangal Raya, New Delhi bearing municipal no. WZ1646D, Nangal Raya, New Delhi, as shown in red in the site plan. The defendant (since expired and through his Legal heirs) may remove any structures/constructions which have been made on Suit No. 205/06 18 the suit plot by him at his own costs. Plaintiffs are entitled to the arrears of rent for the period 01.08.2002 till 01.07.2003 amounting to Rs. 2200/ however, Plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest thereon. Plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2000/ per month from the date of filing of the present suit till the actual, vacant and physical possession of the suit plot is handed over to the plaintiff. Plaintiffs are also entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the pendent lite and future mesne profits awarded. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared on furnishing of deficient court fees. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 10.09.2012 Civil Judge - 02 (North)
10.09.2012
Suit No. 205/06 19
10.09.2012 Suit No. 205/06
Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date the suit of the plaintiffs are
entitled to the relief of possession of the suit plot i.e. plot measuring 295 sq.yards, part of Khasra no. 632/462/176, Nangal Raya, New Delhi bearing municipal no. WZ1646D, Nangal Raya, New Delhi, as shown in red in the site plan. The defendant (since expired and through his Legal heirs) may remove any structures/constructions which have been made on the suit plot by him at his own costs. Plaintiffs are entitled to the arrears of rent for the period 01.08.2002 till 01.07.2003 amounting to Rs. 2200/ however, Plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest thereon. Plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2000/ per month from the date of filing of the present suit till the actual, vacant and physical possession of the suit plot is handed over to the plaintiff. Plaintiffs are also entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the pendent lite and future mesne profits awarded. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared on furnishing of deficient court fees. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
ANJANI MAHAJAN Civil Judge 02 (North)/THC Delhi/ 10.09.2012 Suit No. 205/06 20