Delhi District Court
Shri S.P. Sharma vs Smt. Manjeet Kaur on 17 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA BOSE, CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR
DIVISION, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 305/12
ID No. 02401C0271442008
Shri S.P. Sharma
S/o Late Sh. G.L. Sharma
R/o 115, Uttrakhand, JNU,
New Delhi. ............. plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Manjeet Kaur,
W/o Sh. Manohar Singh
2. Shri Manohar Singh,
S/o Sh. Dayal Singh,
Both R/o Flat No. 70,
Vidya Vihar, Pitampura West,
Delhi34. ................ defendants
Date of Institution of Suit : 21022008
Date of reserve for judgment : 21092013
Date of announcement of Judgment : 17102013
SUIT FOR POSSESION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT
AN DAMAGES/MESNE PROFITS
Judgment :
1. The brief facts, as per averments of the plaint, are that
Suit No. 305/12 1/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
the flat no. 70, Vidya Vihar, Pitam Pura, West, Delhi74 was let out
by the plaintiff, its owner, to the defendants vide rent deed dated
06.06.1999 executed between plaintiff and defendant no. 2 for a
period of 11 months. Another lease deed was also executed
between them on 07.06.2006. That lastly the defendant no. 1
approached the plaintiff for taking the aforesaid flat in her name for
four months and lease deed was executed between plaintiff and
defendant no.1 w.e.f. 07.05.2007 @ Rs.6500/ per month as her
husband Sh. Manohar Singh, defendant no.2 was not available in
India at that time and the said lease agreement expired on
06.09.2007 which was for a period of four months but the
defendants failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the
suit premises to the plaintiff which constrained him to serve a
notice dated 07.11.2007 upon the defendants to hand over the
vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. That instead
of complying with the legal notice, the defendants came up with
false and concocted pleas and sent baseless reply dated
09.12.2007 to the notice of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has
Suit No. 305/12 2/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
been filed by the plaintiff for passing a decree for possession and
recovery of arrears of rent w.e.f. 07.06.2007 @ Rs.6500/ per
month and damages for use and occupation of the said premises
@ Rs.10,000/ per month w.e.f 07.01.2008 till the date on which the
premises is actually vacated and handed over by the defendants to
the plaintiff.
2. WS was filed on behalf of defendants. In preliminary
objections, it is stated that defendant no.2 took the suit premises
on rent @ Rs.3000/ per month on 07.06.1999 exclusive of water
and electricity charges and the tenancy of defendant no. 2 is
governed by Delhi Rent Control Act 1956 and the suit is barred u/s
50 of the said Act. That the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as
the defendant no.1 is not necessary or proper party. That the
defendants have paid rent to the plaintiff directly upto 06.12.2007 in
cash but despite repeated requests and demands, the plaintiff has
never issued the rent receipts and thereafter the plaintiff refuses to
accept the rent. That the present suit has been filed without any
cause of action. That the plaintiff is not the owner of suit flat and he
Suit No. 305/12 3/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
is simply an attorney of owner and the suit filed by him is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
3. On merits, it is stated that the plaintiff has not filed the
correct site plan. No rent deed was signed on 06.06.1999 or on any
other date, between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 for any
period. It is also denied that the defendant no.1 ever approached
the plaintiff for taking in her name the aforesaid flat on fixed terms
lease deed w.e.f 07.05.2007 as the defendant no.2 was already
tenant in respect of suit premises and he never surrendered
possession of the same to plaintiff and as such, the question of
taking the suit premises on lease afresh does not arise. It is
denied that the registered letter dated 14.04.2007 or copy through
UPC was sent to defendant no.2. He never received the alleged
letter or the copy thereto. It is denied that defendant no.2 received
the alleged notice dated 07.11.2007 from the plaintiff or his counsel
and the defendants sent the proper and suitable reply dated
09.12.2007 to the notice dated 27.11.2007. It is also stated that the
suit premises can not fetch more than agreed rent of R.3000/ per
Suit No. 305/12 4/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
month and the alleged rent deed, copy of which has been filed by
the plaintiff is forged and fabricated document and the same has
been manufactured for the purpose to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
It is also stated that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit as
the market value of the suit property is above Rs.40 lacs and
therefore, this Hon'ble Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction.
It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with
compensatory cost u/s 35 of CPC.
4. Rejoinder filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the WS of
defendants wherein the averments of the plaint have been
reiterated and the averments made in the WS have been stated as
false.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed vide order dated 21.04.2011:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred
under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1959? (OPD)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
possession of the suit property? (OPP)
Suit No. 305/12 5/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits as
prayed in the plaint? (OPP)
4. Relief.
6. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he filed
and tendered his affidavit. He was cross examined on behalf of
defendants. PW2 Sh. P.K. Jain, PW3 Sh. Raj Kishor Gaur, PW4
Sh. M.K. Gupta and PW5 Sh. V.P. Thakral tendered their affidavits
in evidence and were crossexamined on behalf of defendants.
7. No evidence has been led on behalf of defendants to
prove their defence and DE was closed on 30.08.2013.
8. I have heard final arguments on behalf of plaintiff. No
one appeared on behalf of defendants on 21.09.2013 for
addressing final arguments and therefore, opportunity of
addressing final arguments on behalf of defendants was closed
and case was adjourned for judgment.
9. I considered the submissions of counsel for plaintiff
and entire evidence on record. My findings on issues are as
under:
Suit No. 305/12 6/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
Finding on issue no.1: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is
barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959?
OPD
10. The onus of proving this issue was on the defendants.
Counsel for defendants have not argued despite opportunity given
to him. It is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the rate of
rent was Rs.6000/ per month as per rent deed Ex.PW1/4 and
Rs.6500/ per month as per rent deed Ex.PW1/6 and therefore,
Section 50 of DRC Act does not attract. As per Section 50 of DRC
Act, 1958, the rate of rent of the premises should be less than
Rs.3,500/ per month. Plaintiff has very well proved the rent deed
Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/6 and thereby has proved that the rate of
rent in the present case was Rs.6000/ per month from 07.06.2006
and Rs.6500/ per month from 07.05.2007 when the tenancy was
determined. Therefore, I am of the view that civil court has
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and Section 50 of DRC Act,
1958 does not attract. This issue is decided accordingly.
Finding on issue no.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
possession of the suit property? (OPP)
Suit No. 305/12 7/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
11. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that by
the testimony of PW1S. P. Sharma, it has been proved that the
premises was let out to the defendant no. 2 Manohar Singh vide
lease / rent deed dated 06061999 for a period of 11 months at a
monthly rent of Rs.4,000/. Lease/ rent deed dated 06061999 is
Ex. PW1/3. It is further submitted that PW2 P. K. Jain has
proved the execution of document Ex. PW1/3 in his presence.
12. No evidence has been led on behalf of the defendants
to prove that Ex. PW1/3 does not bear the signatures of the
defendant no. 2 at point 'B1'. Even on comparing the signatures
of the defendant no. 2 at point 'B1' on the document Ex. PW1/3
with his signatures on the WS filed by him, it is clear that the
signatures at point B1 appears to be signatures of the defendant
no. 2.
13. I gone through the crossexamination of PW1S. P.
Sharma and PW2 - P. K. Jain and I am of the view that there is no
ground for rejecting the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and by their
testimony it has been proved that the rent deed Ex. PW1/3 was
Suit No. 305/12 8/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2.
14. It is further submitted by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
that the rent deed Ex. PW1/4 was executed between the plaintiff
and defendant no. 2 on 07062006 for a period of 11 months and
the rate of rent was agreed @ Rs.6,000/ p.m.. It is further
submitted that no evidence has been led on behalf of the
defendants that the signatures at point 'B1' on the document Ex.
PW1/4 is not of defendant no. 2. It is further submitted that
witness Raj Kishore Gaur is the attesting witness of rent deed Ex.
PW1/4 and he has been examined as PW3 who has proved that
the document Ex. PW1/4 was executed in his presence and
defendant no. 2 had put his signatures in his presence.
15. I considered the submissions of ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff as submitted above. I also gone through the cross
examination of PW3 Raj Kishore Gaur and it is observed that
noting has come during crossexamination which shows that the
testimony of PW3 Raj Kishore Gaur is not trustworthy. No
evidence has been led on behalf of the defendants to prove that
Suit No. 305/12 9/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
the signatures at point 'B1' on the document Ex. PW1/4 is not of
defendant no. 2 and his signatures has been forged and fabricated.
The testimony of PW1 S. P. Sharma and testimony of PW3 Raj
Kishore Gaur has proved the execution of document Ex. PW1/4.
16. It is further submitted by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
that it has been proved by the testimony of PW1 S. P. Sharma and
the testimony of PW4 M. K. Gupta that lease deed Ex. PW1/6
was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 Smt.
Manjeet kaur, wife of the defendant no. 2 for a period of 4 months
as defendant no. 2 was out of India. It is further submitted that
attesting witnesses namely Sh. M. K. Gupta and Sh. V. P. Thakral
have been examined as PW4 and PW5 and the plaintiff has
proved the execution of rent deed Ex. PW1/6 by the testimonies of
these two witnesses.
17. I considered the testimonies of PW1 S.P. Sharma,
PW4 M.K. Gupta and PW5 V.P. Thakral on the point of execution
of rent deed Ex. PW1/6 between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1.
The plaintiff has stated in his affidavit that the suit property was to
Suit No. 305/12 10/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
be vacated by the defendants on 06052007 but instead of
vacating the suit property, the defendant no. 1 Manjit kaur, wife of
the defendant no. 2 requested for some more time to vacate the
suit property as she and her family were shifting very soon and at
her request new lease deed dated 07052007 was entered into
between the plaintiff and her whereby the suit property was let out
for a period of 4 months at a monthly rent of Rs.6,500/. He has
further stated that the said lease deed was executed and signed by
the parties in the presence of M.K. Gupta and V.P. Thakral. PW4
M.K. Gupta has filed his affidavit wherein he has stated that the
lease deed Ex. PW1/6 was executed on 07072007 by S.P.
Sharma and Manjeet Kaurdefendant no. 1 and they had put their
signatures in his presence. He has also stated that the lease deed
was executed for a period of 4 months at a monthly rent of
Rs.6,500/ as defendant no. 1 Manjeet Kaur had requested for
some more time to vacate the suit property. PW5 V.P. Thakral has
also stated these facts in his affidavit. These two witnesses have
been crossexamined on behalf of the defendants but nothing has
Suit No. 305/12 11/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
come during crossexamination from which it can be said that the
testimony of PW4M.K. Gupta and PW5V.P. Thakral is not
trustworthy. These witnesses have very well identified their
signatures on the rent deed Ex. PW1/6. PW4 has categorically
stated during his crossexamination that the signatures at point 'B'
an 'B1' on Ex. PW1/6 were put by Manjeet Kaurdefendant no. 1
in his presence. PW5V.P. Thakral has stated during his cross
examination that Ex. PW1/6 bears his signatures at point 'D'. He
has also identified signatures of another witness M.K. Gupta at
point 'C' on the document Ex. PW1/6. He has also categorically
stated that the signatures at point 'A' was put by S.P. Sharma and
signatures at point 'B1' were put by defendant no. 1 on the
document Ex. PW1/6. He has also stated that both the parties
and witnesses had signed the lease deed Ex. PW1/6 sometimes
in May, 2007. He has also stated that he can tell the substantive
terms of the lease deed Ex. PW1/6 and the same are that the suit
property was let out for a period o 4 months at a monthly rent of
Rs.6,500/. No evidence has been led on behalf of the defendants
Suit No. 305/12 12/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
to prove that the signatures at point 'B1' on the document Ex. PW
1/6 is not of defendant no. 1 and the same has been forged and
fabricated. I agree with the submissions of ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff that by the testimony of PW4 M.K. Gupta and PW5 V.P.
Thakral and of the plaintiffS.P. Sharma, it has been proved that
the lease deed Ex. PW1/6 was executed between the parties on
07052007 and it was only for 4 months. It has also been proved
that the rent deed Ex. PW1/6 was executed between the plaintiff
and defendant no. 1 because defendant no. 2 was out of India at
that time.
18. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that a
notice Ex. PW1/7 dated 30092007 was sent to the defendant
no.2 whereby tenancy was terminated and defendants were asked
to hand over the possession of the suit premises to pay Rs.10,000/
per month as market rent. It is further submitted that a legal notice
Ex. PW1/7A dated 27112007 was also sent to both the
defendants whereby the tenancy of the suit premises was
terminated and the same was replied by the defendants vide reply
Suit No. 305/12 13/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
Ex. PW1/D1 dated 09122007 and a false plea was taken by
them. It is further submitted that there was no need of legal notice
of termination of tenancy since the lease period had, otherwise,
expired by efflux of time on 06092007. Counsel for the plaintiff
has relied upon case law namely Skyland International Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Kavita Lalwani, 191 (2012) DLT 594 in support of his
contentions in this regard.
19. I gone through the case law Skyland International
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kavita Lalwani (Supra), wherein it has been held
that :
"the mode of determination of lease
of immovable property includes end
by efflux of time limited thereby
under Section 111 (a) of T.P. Act of
1982 and it is a statutory obligation of
the lessee to restore the possession
of the leased property to the lessor
under Section 108 (q) on
determination of the lease".
It has been further held that :
"the filing of the suit is itself a notice
to quit on the tenant and no notice to
quit under 106 of T. P. Act is
Suit No. 305/12 14/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
necessary to enable landlord to get
decree of possession".
In the present case lease deed Ex. PW1/6 was
executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 for a period of 4
months w.e.f. 07052007 and therefore, tenancy had determined
by way of efllux of time on 06092007 and there was no need of
giving legal notice of termination of tenancy and defendants were
under statutory obligation to restore the possession of the suit
property to the plaintiff after 06092007 in view of ratio of case law
namely Skyland International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kavita Lalwani
(Supra).
20. In view of the above discussions and reasons therein,
it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of
the Flat no. 70, Vidhya Vihar (Jawahar Lal Nehru University
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.) 2nd Floor, Pitam Pura,
Delhi comprising three bed rooms, drawing/ dining, kitchen, two
bathrooms as shown 'A' to 'P' in red colour in the site plan attached
with the plaint against both the defendants. This issue is decided
Suit No. 305/12 15/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Finding on issue no.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
recovery of arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits as
prayed in the plaint? (OPP)
21. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.45,500/ as arrears of rent
@ RS.6,500/ per month for 7 months. It is submitted by the ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff that as per rent deed Ex. PW1/6,
Rs.6,500/ per month was agreed as rent between the plaintiff and
defendant no. 1 and further submitted that only the rent for the
month of May, 2007 was paid and thereafter rent was not paid. It is
further submitted by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that no
evidence has been led on behalf of the defendants to prove that
the rent from June 2007 till December, 2007 was paid by the
defendants.
22. I considered the submissions of ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff as submitted above. The rent deed Ex. PW1/4 and Ex.
PW1/6 have been proved by the plaintiff as held while deciding
issue no. 2. As per rent deed Ex. PW1/6, the rate of rent was
agreed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 as Rs.6,500/. No
Suit No. 305/12 16/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
evidence has been led on behalf of the defendants to prove that
the rent for the months of June, 2007 to December, 2007 was paid
by them to the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff
is entitled for recovery of Rs.45,500/ being arrears of rent for 7
months w.e.f. June, 2007 to December, 2007.
23. The plaintiff has claimed damages/ mesne profit @
Rs.10,000/ per month w.e.f. 07012008 till the date on which the
premises actually be vacated and handed over to the plaintiff by
the defendants. It is further submitted by the ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff that tenancy was determined by efllux of time on 0609
2007. It is further submitted that the tenancy was terminated by
giving notice Ex. PW1/7A dated 27112007 and therefore both the
defendants are in unauthorized use and occupation of the suit
property. Therefore, they are liable to pay damages / mesne profit
@ Rs.10,000/ p.m.
24. I considered the submissions of ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff as submitted above. As per rent agreement Ex. PW1/6,
the tenancy in the present case had determined by efllux of time
Suit No. 305/12 17/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
i.e. on 06092007 and thereafter, the defendants were under
statutory duty to hand over the possession of the suit property to
the plaintiff but they had not done so. I am also of the view that
after notice Ex. PW1/7A dated 27112007 whereby the tenancy of
the premises was terminated, the defendants were again under
obligation to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property
to the plaintiff and thereafter they were in unauthorized use and
occupation of the suit property. Consequently, they are liable to
pay damages /mesne profit to the plaintiff. As per lease deed Ex.
PW1/6, the agreed rate of rent was Rs.6,500/ per month upto 06
092007. The plaintiff has not examined any witness from the
locality where the suit property is situated to prove that the suit
property, if let out in the year 2008, may fetch Rs.10,000/ per
month. In Ramrameeshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi, V(2011)
SLT 196, it has been held that :
"the court must adopt realistic and
pragmatic approach in granting
mesne profit and must carefully keep
in view the ground realities while
granting mesne profit".
Suit No. 305/12 18/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
25. As per rent deed Ex. PW1/6, the rate of rent of the
suit premises was Rs.6,500/ per month on 07052007.
Considering the inflation rate, and in view of the ratio of case law
Ramrameeshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi (Supra), I am of the
view that if the damages/ mesne profit @ Rs.8,000/ from January,
2008 to January, 2010 and @ Rs.10,000/ from January, 2011 till
the possession of the suit property is handed over by the
defendants or taken by the plaintiff from the defendants is granted,
it would meets ends of justice. Therefore, damages @ Rs.8,000/
is granted from January, 2008 to January, 2010 and @ Rs.10,000/
from January, 2011 till the possession of the suit property is
handed over by the defendants or taken by the plaintiff from the
defendants. This issue is decided accordingly.
Relief.
26. In preliminary objections no. 6 of the WS, it is stated
on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff is not owner of the
suit flat.
Suit No. 305/12 19/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
27. In Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd.Appellant vs
Kavita P. LalwaniRespondent (Supra), it has been held that
"Under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the lessee is estopped from denying the title of the transfree landlord. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the landlord meaning thereby that so long as the tenant has not surrendered the possession, he can not dispute the title of the landlord. However, defective the title of the landlord may be, a tenant is not permitted to dispute the same unless he has surrendered the possession of his landlord. It is based upon the salutary principle of law and justice that a tenant who could not have got the possession but for his contract of tenancy admitting the right of the landlord, can not be allowed to dispute the title of his landlord after taking undue advantage of the possession that he got from the landlord. Of course,, he can deny his title after he gives up the possession having thus restored the statusquo ante."
The rule of estoppel embodied under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is that, a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however defective it may be so long Suit No. 305/12 20/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord..."
28. From the perusal of crossexamination of PW1 on behalf of the defendants, it is clear that defendants have disputed the title of the plaintiff. I agree with the submissions of ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that in view of the ratio of case law Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd.Appellant vs Kavita P. Lalwani Respondent (Supra), the defendants have no right to dispute the title of the plaintiff and therefore they have deliberately taken false and untenable plea. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that panel cost be imposed on dishonest tenants who illegally continue to occupy the tenanted premises by raising frivolous defence. He has relied upon case law namely Ramrameshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi, V(2011) SLT 196, in support of his arguments in this regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and have to be realistic in imposing the costs. The existing system can be drastically changed or Suit No. 305/12 21/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials :
A and B xxx xxx xxx "C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.
D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits".
E and F xxx xxx xxx "G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice".
It is further held that :
"the other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how Suit No. 305/12 22/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts".
29. In Punjab National Bank vs. Virender Prakash while imposing costs of Rs.2 lacs on the bank, the relevant findings of this court are as under :
"1. ...Certain tenants, in this country, consider it an inherent right not to vacate the premises even after either expiry of tenancy period by efflux of time or after their tenancy is terminated by means of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982. All such tenants, including the present appellantbank, feel that they ought to vacate the tenanted premises only when the Courts pass a decree for possession against them. Considering the facts of the case, it is high time that a strict message is sent to those tenants who illegally continue to occupy the tenanted premises by raising frivolous defences only and only to continue in possession of the tenanted premises. Such incorrigible tenants should be appropriately burdened with penal costs ....."
"7. Now, the issue is with respect to costs. I have already given a preface at the very beginning of this judgment. This preface, is a preface which was necessary as much Suit No. 305/12 23/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
as there is a flood of litigation unnecessarily burdening the courts only because obdurate tenants refuse to vacate the tenanted premises even after their tenancy period expires by efflux of time or the monthly tenancy has been brought to an end by service of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982. In the present case, the tenant is not a poor or a middle class person, but is a bank with huge resources and hence can contest litigation to the hilt. It is therefore necessary that I strictly apply the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ram Rameshwari Devi and ors. (Supra)...."
30. In Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd.Appellant vs Kavita P. LalwaniRespondent (Supra), it has been held that "it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrongdoers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation, ultimately they must suffer the costs. Imposing of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings".
31. In Trilochan Singhappelalnt vs. Daya Shankar & orsrespondents, 174 (2010) DLT 266, it has been held that "Every party is expected to comply with Suit No. 305/12 24/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
the law and the contract that he has entered into and his failure to do so and his causing unnecessary litigation should mean a penalty and not a benefit for him. Our Courts are overloaded because it is widely believed that to force the other party to start litigation will in the end be beneficial for the wrongdoer."
32. In Indian Council for Enviro and Legal Action vs. Union of India, (2010) 8 SCC 161, it has been held that :
"to do the complete justice, prevent wrongs, remove incentive for wrongdoing or delay, the court may grant compound interest instead of simple interest".
It has been further held that :
"In consonance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience Judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner and it is bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to abuse the legal process must be effectively curbed and one way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the respondent or the defendant has infact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. No one should be permitted to Suit No. 305/12 25/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
use the judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust profits. The court must effectively discourage dishonest litigation."
33. It has been proved on record that defendant no. 1 had executed rent deed Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 and defendant no. 2 also executed rent deed Ex. PW1/6 but both the defendants have taken the plea that they have executed no rent deeds. In view of the settled preposition of law, it was statutory duty of the defendants to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff after the expiry of the period of the tenancy but they had not handed over the possession of the suit premises even after filing of the suit and taken false pleas. Therefore, in view of ratio of case laws namely Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Appellant vs Kavita P. LalwaniRespondent (Supra), Ramrameshwari Devi vs. Nirmala Devi (supra), Punjab National Bank vs. Virender Prakash (supra), Trilochan Singhappelalnt vs. Daya Shankar & orsrespondents (supra) and Indian Council for Enviro and Legal Action vs. Union of Suit No. 305/12 26/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors. India (supra), I am of the view that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with penal costs also.
34. In view of my findings on all the issues as above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for possession of the suit premises shown as 'A' to 'P' in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint, comprising of three bed rooms, drawing/ dining, kitchen, two bathrooms bearing Flat no. 70, Vidhya Vihar (Jawahar Lal Nehru University Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.) 2 nd Floor, Pitam Pura, Delhi. Suit is also decreed for a sum of Rs.45,500/ alongwith interest @ 8% on it from the date of filing of the suit till the same is recovered.
35. Suit of the plaintiff is also decreed for damages/ mesne profit @ Rs.8,000/ from January, 2008 to January, 2010 and @ Rs.10,000/ from January, 2011 till the possession of the suit property is handed over by the defendants or taken by the plaintiff from the defendants. The amount already deposited on behalf of the defendants is to be deducted from the amount of the mesne profit.
Suit No. 305/12 27/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.
36. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as above alongwith costs and penal costs of Rs.2 lacs which would only do justice.
37. Plaintiff is directed to furnish the court fee on the amount of mesne profit/ damages from the date of filing of the suit upto the date of decree. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on the 17th day of October, 2013 (CHANDRA BOSE) Civil JudgeSenior Division Central District, Delhi.
Suit No. 305/12 28/28 S.P. Sharma Vs Manjeet Kaur & ors.