Delhi District Court
Naresh Kumar vs Jawed Anwar on 26 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY : MS. RICHA SHARMA
CS SCJ No. 1050/2024
CNR Number: DLWT-03-001757-2024
Sh. Naresh Kumar
S/o. Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o. H. No. WZ-420, Khasra No. 1661/709,
Madipur Village, New Delhi-110063. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Jawed Anwar
S/o. Sh. Mohd. Juhi
R/o. P.O. Satghara Rahika,
Distt. Madhubani, Bihar - 847274. ...Defendant
Date of filing : 29.07.2024
Date of judgment : 26.04.2025
Decision : Decreed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IN RESPECT OF A SHOP MEASURING 6' X 12' ON
GROUND FLOOR OF THE PROPERTY BEARING HOUSE NO.
WZ-420, KHASRA NO. 1661/709, MADIPUR VILLAGE, NEW DELHI -
110063 AND FURTHER RENT AS DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF
RS.12,000/- PER MONTH TILL THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF
THE SAID SHOP TO THE PLAINTIFF
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 1/10
JUDGMENT
PRAYER BY PLAINTIFF:-
1. It is inter-alia stated by the plaintiff, that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing House No. WZ-420, Khasra No.1661/709, Madipur Village, New Delhi 110063 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property)
2. It has been averred, that the defendant was inducted as tenant by the plaintiff in respect of one shop measuring 6'x12' on ground floor of the property / House No. WZ-420, Khasra No.1661/709, Madipur Village, New Delhi 110063 (herein after called as the tenanted premises) on the monthly rental of Rs.6,000/- excluding electricity and other charges for commercial purposes and to this effect a Rent Agreement dated 10-08-2018 was also reduced into writing.
Thereafter, the tenancy was further continued from time to time on the oral requests of the defendant. It has been averred, that since the day of inception of the tenancy, the defendant was defaulter in making the payment of rent.
3. It has been averred, that the defendant locked the tenanted premises in the month of October, 2023 and he paid the rent till November and December, 2023, but thereafter, the defendant stopped paying the rent w.e.f. January 2024 to July 2024 and the tenanted premises i.e. the shop is still lying closed.
4. It has been averred, that thereafter, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 2/10 dated 22-05-2024 through his counsel to the defendant thereby terminating the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the above said tenanted premises / shop, but the defendant has neither bothered to comply with the terms and conditions of the said legal notice nor sent any reply to the said legal notice. Thereafter, the Plaintiff further sent a reminder to the legal notice dated 15-06-2024 through his counsel to the defendant and lastly, final legal notice cum reminder was sent to the defendant on 02.07.2024.
5. It has been averred, that left with no option, the plaintiff has to file the present suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and further rent as doubled the amount of Rs.12,000/- per month till the date of handing over of the tenanted shop to the plaintiff.
DEFENDANT PROCEEDED EX-PARTE:-
6. Summons of the present suit were sent to the defendant and the speed post and registered AD received back with the report of "refused". However, the defendant was deemed to be served. However despite service, defendant has failed to appear in the Court and accordingly, vide order dated 01.10.2024, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
EX-PARTE EVIDENCE BY PLAINTIFF:-
7. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon the following documents :-
1. Ex.PW1/1 is the original Rent Agreement dated 10.08.2018, ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 3/10
2. Ex.PW1/2 is the legal notice 22.05.2024,
3. Ex.PW1/3 is the legal notice cum reminder dated 15.06.2024,
4. Ex.PW1/4 is the final legal notice cum reminder dated 02.07.2024.
8. The plaintiff has also examined the summoned witness namely Sh. Amit Sehrawat, JA (Record Room), Sessions, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, as PW2, who produced the summoned record i.e. file titled as Nihal Singh Vs. Om Prakash bearing Goshwara No. 184/D, decided on 29.01.2011 and the copy of the judgment dated 29.01.2011 on the record of the Court was exhibited as Ex.PW2/1.
9. Thereafter, the ex-parte plaintiff evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
10. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has reliance on the judgments viz.,
1. Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P. Lalwani, RFA No. 697/2010 &
2. Payal Vision Ltd. Vs. Radhka Choudhary, Civil Appeal No. 6734/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) no. 10576 of 2011.
FINAL ARGUMENT:-
11. I have heard the final arguments advanced by Learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the complete record carefully. My findings are as under :-
______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 4/10 ANALYSIS:-
12. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. In the first place, the PW1 executed the Rent Agreement dated 10.08.2018 exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. Perusal of the same reflects, that the agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for the monthly rental of Rs. 6000 for a period of 11 months. It has been averred, that the tenancy was further renewed from time to time by the plaintiff on the request of the defendant made. It has further been averred, that till December 2023, the defendant had paid the rent to the plaintiff. Thereafter, he stopped paying the rent.
It is pertinent to note, that the defendant has not come forward to refute the averments made by the plaintiff and the genuineness of the rent agreement. Rather, he chose to remain absent during the proceedings of the case.
13. Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P. Lalwani, RFA No. 697/2010 and the relevant para of the same is reproduced as under :-
13. Duty of a Tenant under Section 108(q) read with Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 13.1 Under Section 108(q) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is the statutory obligation of the lessee to restore the possession of the leased property to the lessor on determination of the ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 5/10 lease. Section 108(q) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is reproduced hereunder:-
―Section 108. Rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee.-- In the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary, the lessor and the lessee of immoveable property, as against one another, respectively, possess the rights and are subject to the liabilities mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property leased:-
A. - Rights and Liabilities of the Lessor.
(a) to (c) xxx xxx xxx B. - Rights and Liabilities of the lessee.
(d) to (p) xxx xxx xxx
(q) on the determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to put the lessor into possession of the property."
14. Thus, from the above-discussed law and the document i.e. rent agreement exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 placed on record by the plaintiff, it can safely be deduced that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, the landlord-tenant stands duly proved.
15. Plaintiff has also sent the legal notice 22.05.2024 exhibited as Ex.PW1/2, legal notice cum reminder dated 15.06.2024 exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 and final legal notice cum reminder dated 02.07.2024 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 6/10 exhibited as Ex.PW1/4. Perusal of the same reveals, that the plaintiff sent the Legal notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy of the defendant qua the tenanted shop and also to pay the rent w.e.f. January 2024 to May 2024 at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is a settled proposition of law, that if a party despite service of legal notices chooses not to reply to the same, the averments of the notice stands admitted. Furthermore, the legal notice along with postal receipts was also sent by plaintiff to the defendant and at this stage inference can be drawn on the basis of Section 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshar Adhiniyam, 2023 (earlier Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act), which states that, " the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and/a private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case." The Clause (f) appended to the section clearly states that, "common course of business has been followed in a particular case, implying that where a letter or legal notice as in the present case is sent to the defendant, it would have ordinarily been delivered in the common course of business to the party to whom it was addressed."
16. In this case the delivery of the legal notice also stands proved by the postal receipts placed on record and also the tracking report of the service of the legal notice.
17. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 7/10 Abdul Gaffar vs. DDA 2001 Rajdhani Law Reporter 249 that if a legal notice is given by a party, the same is not replied and contents not denied then, silence of the notice raises presumption against him. Another judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled as Kalu Ram v Sita Ram 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 44 is on the same aspect.
18. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention Section 27 of the General Clauses Act :
"Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or "given" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 observed as under :
"The principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act could profitably be imported in a case where the sender had dispatched the notice by post with the direct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the addressee, unless he proves that it was not really served and he ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 8/10 was not responsible for such non-service. These were the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case relating to service of notice U/s 138 of NI Act. "
20. Thus, in the backdrop of the facts of the present case and the same being read conjointly with the law reproduced as above, it is clear, that the legal notices were sent to defendant by plaintiff and same are Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4. Despite that the defendant did not reply to the legal notice nor did he make payment of the rent and this goes to establish that defendant does not have any valid defence to make against the contentions of plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant did not appear before the court even after service of summons to contest the present suit.
21. The defendant has chosen to remain absent during the entire course of proceedings and henceforth he neither cross examined the plaintiff's witness nor led any evidence. Hence, the averments made by the plaintiff remain unchallenged and unrebutted. The suit is within the period of limitation as well as within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The suit of the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to be decreed against the defendant.
RELIEF:-
22. In the teeth of the above analysis, the suit of plaintiff stands decreed and the plaintiff is held for the following reliefs :-
1. Decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 9/10 defendant in respect of the suit premises bearing one shop measuring 6'x12' on ground floor of the property / House No. WZ-420, Khasra No.1661/709, Madipur Village, New Delhi 110063.
2. Decree of rent for the period w.e.f. January 2024 to May 2024 for the amount of Rs. 6000/- per months, totalling to Rs. 30,000/-.
3. Plaintiff is further entitled for decree of the rent w.e.f filing of the present suit till handing over of the suit property @ Rs.6000/- per month.
4. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
23. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly.
24. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.26 16:02:20 Announced in open court on RICHA SHARMA +0530 26.04.2025. SCJ-CUM-RC (WEST) THC / Delhi / 26.04.2025 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 10/10 CS SCJ 1050/24 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar CNR NO.DLWT030017572024 26.04.2025 Present : Sh. Amit Bhatia, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff.
Defendant is already exparte.
Submisions heard.
Ld. Cousel for the plaintiff has placed on record certain documents in support of his contentions.
List for judgment at 4:00 PM.
(Richa Sharma) Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC THC / Delhi / 26.04.2025 At 4:00 PM Present : Sh. Amit Bhatia, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff with plaintiff.
Defendant is already exparte.
Vide separate detailed judgment of the even date announced in the open Court today, the suit of plaintiff stands decreed and the plaintiff is held for the following reliefs :-
1. Decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the suit premises bearing one shop measuring 6'x12' on ground floor of the property / House No. WZ-420, Khasra No.1661/709, Madipur Village, New Delhi 110063.
2. Decree of rent for the period w.e.f. January 2024 to May 2024 for the amount of Rs. 6000/- per months, totalling to Rs.
______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 11/10 30,000/-.
3. Plaintiff is further entitled for decree of the rent w.e.f filing of the present suit till handing over of the suit property @ Rs.6000/- per month.
4. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.26
(Richa Sharma)
16:02:14
+0530
Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC
THC / Delhi / 26.04.2025
______________________________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ No. 1050/2024 Naresh Kumar Vs. Jawed Anwar Page No. 12/10