Delhi District Court
Shri Jai Prakash Gupta vs New Delhi Municipal Committee on 24 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH: COMMERCIAL
CIVIL JUDGE: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. 12/08/86
Shri Jai Prakash Gupta ....Plaintiff.
S/o Shri K. R. Gupta,
Shop No. 272, Palika Bazar, New Delhi.
Vs.
New Delhi Municipal Committee, ..... Defendant.
Through its Administrator,
Palika Kendra, New Delhi
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF.
Date of institution of suit : 15.02.1986.
Date of hearing of final arguments : 17.09.2013.
Date of final judgment : 24.09.2013
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta has filed his present suit for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief against defendant New Delhi Municipal Committee. Facts of the case as disclosed from record are discussed in brief asunder.
2. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction with SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 1/21 consequential relief was filed on 15.02.1986 seeking declaration of his status as lessee with respect to shop No. 272 Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi or in the alternative, declaration estopping defendant from imposing any fresh terms and conditions by way of new licence deed and permanent injunction restraining defendant from canceling the allotment of plaintiff's shop No. 272 Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi for reason of his refusal to sign fresh deed as required vide letters dated 06.05.1985 and 17.12.1985. Defendant NDMC was served with summons of suit and has filed its written statement to plaint opposing plaintiff's suit. After completion of pleadings, issues were settled vide order dated 17.01.1996 and matter was adjourned for evidence.
3. However, an application under Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC) for amendment of plaint was filed on record on 29.10.1998 which was replied by defendant/NDMC and after hearing submissions upon application, court vide order dated 15.05.2000 allowed plaintiff's application and took the amended plaint and amended written statement filed by parties on record. Matter was thereafter again listed for admission denial of documents and settlement of issues with connected case and vide order dated 17.08.2002, having observed that issues have been framed on 17.01.1996, matter was again fixed for plaintiff's evidence. SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 2/21
4. By way of amended plaint, plaintiff Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta avers of having taken shop No. 272, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi from defendant NDMC upon monthly rent of Rs. 2,934/ on the basis of document dated 06.11.1978 executed between them. He also avers that though the document is referred as " Deed of Licence", it is in fact a lease deed creating landlordtenant relationship between them. Plaintiff further avers that after expiry of initial period of contractual lease on 05.11.1983, defendant NDMC started sending bills for subsequent periods adding 10% increase to the original agreed rent on account of renewal of lease deed and he started paying increased rent to NDMC. However, defendant issued a letter annexing performa of new licence deed which was received on or about 06.05.1985 requiring him to deposit Rs. 1,170/ as additional security and to execute fresh 'Licence Deed' with defendant. Defendant's letter was replied vide reply dated 02.06.1985 stating that no fresh condition could be imposed after extension of relationship as having exercised the option of renewal under the document, defendant could not introduce fresh conditions with retrospective effects, however, defendant NDMC vide letter dated 17.12.1985 again asked him to sign fresh licence deed.
5. Plaintiff alleges that defendant is coercing him to execute fresh licence deed with ulterior motive as it wishes to alter the initial contract dated 06.11.1978 to nullify the effect of interim order dated SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 3/21 16.09.1983 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India staying the operation of Trade Zoning Plan. He further alleges that vide letter dated 17.12.1985 defendant NDMC has perpetrated its threat to cancel his lease and when he visited defendant's office on 11.02.1986 to inquire about the matter, he came to know that defendant is likely to cancel his licence for reentering in the shop.
6. On the basis of his pleadings in his amended plaint, plaintiff Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta has prayed the court to:
(a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, declaring that the plaintiff is a lessee of the defendant with respect to shop No. 272, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi and cannot be dispossessed without due process of law as contemplated under Delhi Rent Control Act and further Ithe action of the defendant in asking for execution of the fresh deed is illegal and unenforceable and cannot be thrust upon the plaintiff and the same is declared null and void and unsustainable law.
(b) Alternatively, pass a decree of declaration declaring that the licence of the plaintiff with respect to shop No. 272, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi, having been renewed on 29.10.1983, the defendant is now estopped from imposing any fresh terms and SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 4/21 conditions by a new Licence Deed.
(c) Pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking any action with respect to the cancellation of the plaintiff's shop No. 272, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi for the reason of plaintiff's refusal to sign a fresh deed as required by the plaintiff, vide defendant's letter of 06.05.1985 and 17.12.1985.
(d) Grant in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant any other or further relief/ reliefs which this court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(e) Award costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
7. Defendant NDMC in its amended written statement to the amended plaint has challenged plaintiff's valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction for seeking dismissal of plaintiff's suit. Defendant NDMC has also averred that licence deed executed between them on 06.11.1978 has expired on 06.11.1983 and after expiry of licence, plaintiff/licencee is an unauthorized occupant in the suit premises. Defendant avers that plaintiff being a licencee in the suit premises has no right, title or interest in the suit property as after SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 5/21 expiry of the licence no fresh licence has been executed as provided under section 47 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 besides claiming that his suit is also liable to be dismissed for want of service of statutory notice under section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, prior to the institution of the suit. On merits, except having admitted the contents of para no. 2 of the plaint to the extent of execution of licence on 06.11.1978 between them and averments forming matter of record, defendant NDMC has denied the other averments made in the plaint and has prayed for dismissing plaintiff's suit with special costs.
8. Issues originally settled between parties on the basis of their earlier plaint and written statement have remained on record and no fresh issue has been settled subsequent to the taking of amended plaint and amended written statement. These issues originally settled vide order dated 17.01.1996 are:
1. Whether the plaintiff has been lessee or licencee of shop No. 272, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi?
2. Whether the defendant is estopped from imposing any fresh term and condition in the new licence deed as alleged by the plaintiff?
3. Whether the possession of the plaintiff of the shop in question has become unauthorized subsequent to 06.11.1983 as alleged by the defendant? If so its effects. SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 6/21
4. Whether the plaintiff has been justified to refuse to sign any fresh deed in respect of the shop in question as required by the letters dated 06.05.1985 and 17.12.1985 of the defendant? If so its effects.
5. Whether this suit has been properly valued and court fee paid has been proper? If not its effects.
6. Whether this suit has become infructuous as alleged by the defendant? If so its effects.
7. Relief.
9. To prove its case for obtaining a decree of declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief as prayed, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and Sh. Dinesh Kumar as PW2. Both witnesses have tendered their affidavits marked on record as Ex PX and Ex PW2/A in their examination in chief and have been cross examined by learned counsel for defendant NDMC. Defendant/NDMC on its part has examined DW1 Sh. S. K. Verma, Assistant Director, Estate, New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi who has tendered his affidavit marked Ex DX in his examination in chief but could not be cross examined which was deferred and later defence evidence was closed vide order dated 18.05.2006. Thereafter vide order dated 23.04.2008 defendant's application under filed under section 151 CPC was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,500/ imposed vide order date 09.01.2007 and additional cost of Rs. 1,000/ and defendant was SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 7/21 granted another opportunity to lead its evidence. Sh. Ram Kanwar, Dy. Director (Estate) NDMC has thereafter tendered his fresh affidavit in evidence marked as EX DW1/A and relied upon documents marked as Ex DW1/1 to Ex DW1/8. He has been cross examined by plaintiff's counsel and after closure of evidence, matter was fixed for final arguments/ submissions to be addressed by parties.
10. Final arguments/submissions have been addressed by Advocate Ms. Manju Mehta appearing for plaintiff and Advocate Sh. S. S. Gupta for defendant/NDMC. Having perused the pleadings and evidence led on judicial record by plaintiff and defendant, my findings upon issues settled vide order dated 17.01.1996 are recorded below.
ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff has been lessee or licencee of shop No. 272, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, New Delhi? FINDING: DW1 Sh. Ram Kanwar, Dy. Director Estate NDMC has tendered his affidavit marked Ex DW1/A in his examination in chief and in para no. 2 of his affidavit has affirmed that licence deed between plaintiff and defendant was executed on 06.11.1978 which expired on 05.11.1983, besides referring to the document as Ex DW1/1. He also deposed that having been inducted as licencee SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 8/21 by defendant, after expiry of licence, plaintiff/licencee is an unauthorized occupant in the suit premises as shop was given on licence basis and not on rent and possession and control was agreed to remain with defendant and licence did not confer any right or interest on the plaintiff as is evident from the various clauses of the licence deed. DW1 has relied upon related documents referred /marked as Ex DW1/1 to Ex DW1/8 to depose that time period of licence was five years and licence was renewable subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions. He further deposed that permission and possession of premises was given/allotted upon licencee to enable plaintiff to carry his business independently, but subject to strict adherence of terms and conditions of licence deed and also referred to the decision of defendant to regularize subletting in the name of sublettee vide its Resolution No. 39 A dated 05.11.1985, subject to enhancement of licence fee and completion of formalities to avoid unnecessary litigation as gesture adopted by the autonomous body in public interest.
Plaintiff per contra has examined himself as PW1 having deposed by way of affidavit marked on record as Ex. PX besides referring to the copy of written agreement in respect of shop No. 272 as Ex.PW1/1. He affirms of being in exclusive possession of shop which is under his lock without any interference by NDMC. He SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 9/21 further affirms that his goods are lying in his shop and he has got installed electricity meter and is paying electricity charges and defendant has no control of any nature over the shop. He also affirms that the agreement was concluded for a period of five years from the date of execution of Ex.PW1/1 and it was stipulated that after expiry of five years he shall be liable to pay rental charges by enhancing @ 10% of the amount mentioned in Ex.PW1/1 which he availed having started paying enhanced rent/charge, but defendant being landlord has manipulated the document by illegally giving colour as licence deed though the document is in fact an agreement of tenancy. Plaintiff has been cross examined by defendant's counsel and deposed that the main door of the shop opens in the corridor of Palika Bazar and he can open his shop at any time he likes. He also stated there are about 300 shops in Palika Bazar and to enter these shops there are seven entrances and the access to the main market is through seven gates. On the other hand DW1 Sh Ram Kanwar during his cross examination by plaintiff's counsel has admitted that shop allotted to plaintiff in Palika Bazar is in his exclusive possession and goods lying therein belong to the plaintiff. He also admitted that meter installed in the premises is in the name of shopkeeper who is in possession of his shop under his lock and though he denied the suggestion that plaintiff can sublet the shop, nonetheless affirmed that plaintiff can enter into partnership. DW1 also admitted that SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 10/21 shop was given to plaintiff on the basis of agreement executed in 1978 initially for a period of five years with the condition that the licence fee shall increase by 10% after expiry of first five years. At this stage it is also relevant to record that plaintiff has affirmed in para No. 4 in his affidavit marked Ex. PX that in terms of regulation No. 39A dated 05.11.1985 passed by defendant/NDMC, he has been permitted to submit, assign and enter any third party interest in the tenancy premises without any intimation to defendant. No question or suggestion has been put to witness/PW1 to controvert his deposition, rather DW1 Sh. Ram Kanwar in para No. 9 of his affidavit marked Ex. DW1/A has also stated of defendant's decision to regularize subletting in the name of sub lettee vide its Resolution No. 39 A dated 05.11.1985 subject to enhancement of licence fee and completion of formalities to avoid unnecessary litigation and as gesture adopted by the autonomous body in public interest.
At this stage it would helpful to refer to the Deed of licence filed on record and referred by witnesses as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex DW1/1. Clause 1 of the Deed of Licence/Agreement records that the licence shall be for the period of five years from 06.11.78 and thereafter will be renewable subject to increase in the rate of licence fee by 10% and on the terms and conditions as may be laid down by the licensor. Similarly clause No. 4, clause No. 26 and SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 11/21 clause No. 28 find mention of giving 30 days notice for revocation of licence. Clause No. 6 of the deed/agreement similarly records that licencee shall not permit the allotted premises or any part thereof being used by any other person for any purpose, whatsoever, without previous consent in writing of the licensor and shall not introduce any partner, nor shall transfer possession of premises or any part thereof or otherwise carry on the business in the premises with any other person, or assign, transfer, change or otherwise alienate his interests in the premises. Though in clause No. 27 of the deed, defendant NDMC has mentioned that licence is revocable at will of licenser and does not create or vest any interest of the licencee in the licence premises, nonetheless the term recorded in clause No. 27 has to be read in juxtaposition with clause No.6 which records the interest in the premises.
Lease has been defined in section 105 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 as transfer of right to enjoy such property, made for certain time or in perpetuity, express or implied in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specific occasions, to the transferor by transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Lease essentially creates the right of enjoyment of leasehold interest in the property in favour of lessee. Section 52 SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 12/21 of the Indian Easement Act 1882 on the other hand defines the term Licence which gives a right to another to come on the land or premises and use them in some way or the other while it remains in possession and control of the owner thereof. But for the permission, his occupation or use would be unlawful and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title Associated Hotels of India Vs. R. N. Kapoor AIR 1959 SC 1262 has laid down:
i.To ascertain whether a documents creates a lease or licence, the substance of the document must be preferred to the form. ii.The real test is the intention of the parties - whether intended to create a lease or licence.
iii.If the document creates an interest in the property, it is a lease, but, if only permits another to make use of the property of which the legal posession continues with the owner, it is a licence. iv.If under the document party gets exclusive possession of the property, prima facie he is considered to be a tenant, but circumstances may be established which negative the intention to create tenancy.
In another judgment titled M. N. Clubwalls Vs. Fida Hussain SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 13/21 Sahab AIR 1965 SC 610, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that decisive consideration is the intention of parties which is to be ascertained considering relevant provision in the agreement, where the language of agreement is ambiguous, then regard must be had to its object and circumstances under which it was executed. Exclusive possession is not the conclusive evidence of a lease, however exclusive possession coupled with an interest in the property, the agreement would be construed not a mere licence but as a lease. Similar observation has been made by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case titled G. Cariyappa Vs. Mrs. Leile Sinha Roy AIR 1984 Calcutta 105 wherein Hon'ble Court has observed that description given by the parties may be evidence of the intention but is not decisive and the crucial test is whether instrument intended to create or not an interest in the property and if it creates an interest it is a lease and if it does not create an interest, it is a licence. The test of exclusive possession though not decisive is of significance. In the present case in hand, considering the evidence led on record, i.e the deed of licence dated 06.11.78 and cross examination of plaintiff PW1 and DW1 discussed above, the document i.e "Deed of Licence" marked and referred as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex DW1/1, despite being described as deed of licence essentially creates an interest in shop No. 272 in favour of plaintiff. Further, defendant's decision to regularize subletting in SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 14/21 the name of sublettee vide its Resolution No. 39 A dated 05.11.1985, subject to enhancement of licence fee and completion of formalities to avoid unnecessary litigation and as gesture adopted by the autonomous body in public interest, referred by PW1 and DW1 during their deposition also signifies creation of interest in the property in favour of petitioner. Hence on the basis of document marked and proved on record as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex DW1/1 and evidence in the nature of examination in chief and cross examination of witnesses led on record and discussed above, plaintiff is indeed a lessee and not a licencee in shop No. 272.
Issue No.1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the defendant is estopped from imposing any fresh term and condition in the new licence deed as alleged by the plaintiff?
FINDING: Plaintiff Sh. Jai Parkash Gupta examined on record as PW1 and defendant's witness Sh. Ram Kanwar examined on record as DW1 have referred to the document, i.e the "Deed of Licence" dated 06.11.1978 as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex.DW1/1. Clause No.1 of Deed of Licence taken on record mentions, " That the licence shall be for a period of five year from 6/11/78 and thereafter will be nenewable subject to increase in the rate of SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 15/21 licence fee by 10% and on the terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Licenser". Though plaintiff has deposed in his affidavit marked Ex.PX that having acted upon terms and conditions of document Ex.PW1/1 defendant has no authority to ask him to execute fresh agreement in respect of tenancy premises, however the document itself having been proved on record by parties, plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead any oral evidence contrary to the term of the agreement. Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 lays down that when terms of contract, or grant, or any other disposition of property has been reduced to the form of document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of the property, or of such matter, except the document itself. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 similarly provides that once a document has been proved according to section 91, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms. Clause 1 of the deed categorically records that licence shall be for a period of five years from 6/11/1978 and thereafter will be renewable subject to increase in the rate of licence fee by 10% and on the terms and conditions as may be laid down by the licensor. Document itself having reserved defendant's right to renew the agreement upon the terms and conditions as may be laid SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 16/21 by the licenser, there can be no embargo or estoppel upon defendant's right to impose fresh terms and condition in the new lease/licence deed. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the possession of the plaintiff of the shop in question has become unauthorized subsequent to 06.11.1983 as alleged by the defendant? If so its effects.
FINDING: DW1 Sh. Ram Kanwar in his affidavit Ex. DW1/A has deposed that licence in favour of plaintiff has expired on 5/11/83 and after the expiry of licence plaintiff is an unauthorised occupant in the suit premises. He has been cross examined by plaintiff's counsel and has nonetheless admitted that initially shop in question was given for the period of five years upon the condition that the licence fees would increase by 10% after expiry of first five years and expressed ignorance whether plaintiff has started paying increased charges after the expiry of period of five years and also expressed ignorance whether defendant/ NDMC has given notice to plaintiff after expiry of five years time. Section 4 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 postulates service of notice to show cause against order of eviction. The relevant provision is reproduced for SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 17/21 ready reference. "If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorise occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made." Since in the present case no notice as required under section 4 of the Act has been served upon plaintiff by defendant till date and rental charge is being paid to defendant after increase of 10% even after expiry of five years which has not been denied by DW1, so defendant NDMC having received/ collected charges/ rent from plaintiff after 05.11.1983, plaintiff's possession in the suit premises/shop No. 272 does not become unauthorized subsequent to 06.11.1983 as alleged by defendant. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided against defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4: Whether the plaintiff has been justified to refuse to sign any fresh deed in respect of the shop in question as required by the letters dated 06.05.1985 and 17.12.1985 of the defendant? If so its effects.
FINDING: Having decided issue No.2 in favour of defendant and against plaintiff holding that document Ex.PW1/1 is a lease deed SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 18/21 and defendant/NDMC being lessor is not estopped from imposing any fresh term and condition in the new lease/licence deed in view of Clause No.1 of deed dated 6/11/78 and bar of section 91 and section 92 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 operating against giving of any oral evidence to the contrary, this issue is decided against plaintiff to hold that defendant NDMC having reserved its right to renew the agreement after expiry of five year period upon such terms and conditions as may be laid by licenser, plaintiff is not justified in refusing to sign fresh deed in respect of shop in question as required by the letters dated 6/5/1985 and 17/12/1985. ISSUE NO. 5: Whether this suit has been properly valued and court fee paid has been proper? If not its effects. FINDING: In para No.18 of the plaint, plaintiff has valued his suit for reliefs of declaration at Rs.200/ each and for the relief of injunction at Rs.1,00,000/ and affixed court fee of Rs. 3,408.80/. In para No.1 of its written statement, defendant NDMC has raised preliminary objection claiming that the suit is not properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The suit was initially filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 15.02.1986 and with change of jurisdiction, matter has been transferred to this court. The issue originally framed on 17.01.1996 has become SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 19/21 redundant and is accordingly decided against defendant. ISSUE NO. 6: Whether this suit has become infructuous as alleged by the defendant? If so its effects.
FINDING: No evidence has been led on record by defendant NDMC to prove that plaintiff's suit has become infructuous. Issue No.6 is decided against defendant.
ISSUE NO. 7: Relief.
FINDING: Thus on the basis of my finding upon the issues discussed above, plaintiff's suit is partly decreed declaring plaintiff Jai Parkash Gupta as 'lessee' in shop No.272 and the deed of licence dated 06.11.1978 as 'lease'. However plaintiff is not entitled to declaration of protection under The Delhi Control Act, 1958 as grant having been made by defendant NDMC, Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 has no application in case of Government premises as laid under Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Similarly plaintiff is not entitled to declaration declaring action of defendant seeking execution of fresh deed as illegal and unenforceable in view of finding given upon Issue No.2. Further no declaration declaring licence being renewed on 29.10.1983 and estopping defendant from imposing fresh terms and conditions by new SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 20/21 licence deed can granted to plaintiff, in view of my finding upon Issues No. 2 and 4. Plaintiff/PW1 having admitted during his cross examination that no fresh agreement has been entered between the parties similarly cannot seek permanent injunction restraining defendant from taking action upon his refusal to sign fresh deed as required vide letters dated 06.05.1985 and 17.12.1985 in the absence of any corresponding obligation upon defendant /NDMC. Plaintiff's suit upon contest is hence partly decreed as per relief. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. Case file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 24.09.2013. (Tarun Yogesh) Commercial Civil Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi: 24.09.2013 SUIT NO. 12/08/86 Jai Prakash Vs. NDMC Page No. 21/21