Delhi District Court
Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs . P. Manohar on 24 July, 2020
Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs. P. Manohar
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY, CIVIL
JUDGE, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURT, NEW DELHI
Suit no.218/18
In the matter of:
Rama Lingam
s/o Late Sh. Narayan,
r/o H. No. 29/140, Trilokpuri, Delhi110091
Also at:
r/o 29/61, Trilokpuri, Delhi110091
.......Plaintiff
versus
P. Manohar
s/o Sh. Pannu Swami,
r/o H. No. 29/140, Trilokpuri, Delhi110091
.......Defendant
Date of Institution of suit: 08.03.2018
Date of reservation for judgment: 11.03.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 24.07.2020
Page No.1/8
Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs. P. Manohar
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.This is a suit for permanent injunction, recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit has been filed against the defendant.
2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is absolute and law ful owner of property No.29/140, Trilokpuri, Delhi110091 con structed upto only ground floor (hereinafter referred to as suit prop erty). The plaintiff has purchased the said property from the defendant in the year 2006 and the defendant handed over the peaceful posses sion of the said property to the plaintiff
3. After selling out the suit property, the defendant shifted to Block no.28 on rent and thereafter, resided in different rental premises from time to time. In the month of May 2016, the defendant approached the plaintiff requesting him to let out his suit property to defendant for 11 months for a sum of Rs. 2200/ per month excluding water and elec tricity charges vide oral agreement on 10.05.2016. Since then, the de fendant had been enjoying the rental property and paying the monthly rent of Rs. 2200/ per month excluding water and electricity charges.
4. Further, after expiry of the statutory period of tenancy, plaintiff asked the defendant in the month of March 2017 to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of the tenanted premises but instead, the defen dant stopped paying monthly rent and refused to vacate the rental premises on one pretext or other. It is further stated that the defendant is in arrears of rent for the last 10 months and despite repeated de Page No.2/8 Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs. P. Manohar mand the defendant did not pay the amount. Lastly, the defendant has locked the tenanted premises and has disappeared since the month of September 2017 without any trace.
5. Legal notice dated 21.10.2017 was served upon the defendant on which defendant gave no reply. On 05.01.2018, the defendant entered the premises in question at about 11.00 PM, the plaintiff reached there and requested him to vacate the premises and clear the arrears of rent but, the defendant threatened the plaintiff to create the third party in terest and further extended threats. Hence the present suit.
6. Summons were served upon the defendant by way of publication in newspaper Veer Arjun. But despite service of summons, none has ap peared on behalf of defendant. Hence, defendant was proceeded ex parte on 14.05.2019.
7. Subsequently, the plaintiff examined himself in evidence as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He placed re liance upon the following documents: Mark A Copy of aadhar Card Ex. PW1/2(OSR) Copy of election ID Card Ex. PW1/3 Site plan Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) Copy of GPA alongwith affidavit dated 10.04.2006 Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) Copy of agreement to sale dated 10.04.2006 Page No.3/8 Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs. P. Manohar Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) Copy of receipt dated 10.04.2006 Ex. PW1/7 (OSR) Copy of possession letter dated 10.04.2006 Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) Copy of Will deed dated 10.04.2006 Ex. PW1/9 Copy of irrevocable GPA dated 29.04.2006 Ex. PW1/10 Legal notice dated 21.10.2017 Ex. PW1/11 Postal receipt Ex. PW1/12 Envelope
8. Plaintiff examined his grandson Sh. M. Raja as PW2. He has ten dered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon document already exhibited as Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/12. He also re lied upon document i.e. copy of election ID Card Ex. PW2/1 (OSR). Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 11.09.2019.
9. As defendant was proceeded ex parte. No defence evidence was led in the matter. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
10.On the very outset, neither the authenticity of the documents has been challenged by the defendant nor has the testimony of the plaintiff been questioned by the defendant despite opportunity. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted. In the said unrebutted testimony, PW1 has stated that he is the absolute owner of the property by virtue of ti tle documents which are Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/9. On 10.05.2016, the said premise was let out to defendant for 11 months for rent of Rs. 2200/ per month. It is also stated that the defendant is in arrears of Page No.4/8 Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs. P. Manohar rent since March 2017. The said fact of nonpayment of rent since March 2017 remain unrebutted and unchallenged.
11.The rent agreed between the parties was Rs. 2,200/ per month. How ever, Counsel for plaintiff submits that the area has not been notified under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and therefore the claim of the Plaintiff qua possession is not covered under this Act. In support of his case, Counsel for plaintiff relied upon the notifications issued by Government of India from time to time, wherein the impugned area i.e., Trilokpuri does not find a mention. In absence of any rebuttal, the contention of the plaintiff has to be taken as it is.
12.It has also come in this evidence that due to nonpayment of rent on regular basis, plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide Legal Notice dated 21.10.2017 which is Ex. PW1/10. The said legal notice was sent vide postal receipts Ex. PW1/11 calling upon the de fendant to vacate the suit property and pay arrears of rent. Thus, the plaintiff duly terminated the tenancy of the Plaintiff and gave time to the Defendant to vacate the suit property within 30 days of receipt of legal notice dated.
13.The defendant remained exparte in this matter. The Plaintiff was not crossexamined on the facts stated on oath by him as PW1. The doc uments produced in support of the said testimony of the plaintiff have been duly proved which support the case of the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said documents. Thus, the Plaintiff has been able to show that he is the landlord of the defendant. He has Page No.5/8 Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs. P. Manohar also been able to show that he duly terminated the tenancy of the de fendant and the Defendant was liable to vacate the suit property within 30 days of the receipt of legal notice dated 21.10.2017. Thus, the Plaintiff has been able to make out a case for possession in his favour.
14.Further, the plaintiff stated on oath that the defendant is in arrears of rent since March 2017. The Plaintiff is thus entitled to rent for the said period at the rate of Rs. 2,200/ per month. After the termination of the tenancy of the defendant by the Plaintiff, the occupation of the suit premises by the Defendant is illegal and unauthorised and thus he is liable to pay damages/mesne profits to the Plaintiff till he vacates the suit premises. Now the question arises as to at what rate the De fendant be made liable to pay damages/mesne profits. The Plaintiff has claimed damages for illegal use and unauthorized occupation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ per month to be calculated from September 2017. However, no specific evidence has been led by the plaintiff in this regard and it is not clear as to why the damages are claimed from September 2017 when the legal notice was issued on 21.10.2017.
15.In my view, prayer for damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ per month appears to be highly excessive. Therefore, in my considered opinion, damage/mesne profits awarded at the rate of Rs. 3000/ per month in appears to be reasonable and justified. Further, the damages shall be calculated after the expiry of 30 days from receipt of notice. As per postal receipt Ex.PW1/11, the legal notice was sent on 06.11.2017.
Page No.6/8Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs. P. Manohar For ease of calculation, the damages shall be calculated from 10.12.2017 after taking into consideration the time spent in transit and expiry of 30 days time period. As a result, the plaintiff is granted damages/use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ per month w.e.f 10.12.2017 till vacation of the suit premises.
16.As it has been established above, that the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession in his favour against the tenant, then no right of the de- fendant is left in the suit property. Plaintiff deposed that on 05.01.2018, the defendant came to the suit premises and threatened the plaintiff that he will create third party interest in the suit property. As such, after termination of tenancy, the tenant is not left with any rights over the suit property. Accordingly, the prayer for decree of permanent injunction is also allowed.
17.In light of the aforementioned observations, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed against the defendant. The plaintiff is awarded the fol lowing reliefs:
i. Decree of permanent injunction. The defendants, his associates, agents, servants, and any person acting and representing on be half of defendant are hereby restrained from creating any third party interest, sale, alienate, transfer, or part with the suit prop erty bearing No.29/140, Trilokpuri Delhi110091.
ii. Decree of recovery of possession against the defendant. The de fendant is directed to vacate and handover the peaceful posses Page No.7/8 Suit No.218/18 Rama Lingam vs. P. Manohar sion of the suit property No. 29/140, Trilokpuri Delhi110091 to the plaintiff.
iii. The plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,200/ from 01.03.2017 till 09.12.2017 alongwith damages @ Rs. 3,000/ per month from 10.12.2017 till vacation of the suit property.
iv. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs of the suit.
18. Let a decree sheet be prepared in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to record after necessary compliance.
Announced through video
conferencing on 24.07.2020
Swayam Siddha Tripathy
CJ/EAST/24.07.2020
Digitally signed by
SWAYAM SIDDHA
SWAYAM TRIPATHY
Location:
SIDDHA Karkardooma
TRIPATHY Courts, Delhi
Date: 2020.07.24
02:48:23 +0530
Page No.8/8