Delhi District Court
Dr. Ajay Shanker Khandelwal vs Sh. Joginder Singh Bedi on 9 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. ARCHANA SINHA
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CENTRAL) 04, THC, DELHI
Date of institution : 30.11.1988
Judgment reserved on : 28.02.2011
Judgment delivered on : 09.03.2011
Suit No. 000300/08/2002 Unique Case ID No. 02401C0123612006
Dr. Ajay Shanker Khandelwal,
s/o Late Ghanshyam Dass Khandelwal,
through his General Attorney,
Sh. Abhey Shanker Khandelwal,
61/4, Ramjas Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Joginder Singh Bedi
(since deceased)
through his legal heirs
(a) Dr. Rani Balbir Kaur Bedi.
W/o Late Sh. J.S. Bedi.
(b) Ms. Sonia Bedi.
D/o Late Sh. J.S. Bedi.
(c) Mrs. Komal Gupta Bedi
D/o Late Sh. J.S. Bedi
All resident of 359, Sector9D,
Chandigarh ... Defendants
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit for recovery for an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 1
2. In brief, the facts as brought in the plaint in narrow compass are that, the plaintiff is a medical practitioner and a Non Resident Indian (NRI) settled at Canada and has filed the suit through his General Attorney Sh. Ajay Shanker Khandelwal.
3. As per the plaint, he is a tenant in respect of first floor of property No.D70, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as `suit premises') by virtue of a lease deed dated 29.10.1986 executed between the defendant and the plaintiff for a period of five years at the rate of Rs.1,000/ per month. The portion in his occupation is shown red in the site plan annexed with the plaint, and that such lease deed was executed after having obtained substantial monetary consideration from the plaintiff, which was to be registered on 30.10.1986, but was not registered by the defendant with ulterior motives.
4. It is further pleaded that the defendant has removed the entire tiles of the roof of the tenanted premises, and also has removed deliberately the entire water proofing of the roof, he used Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 2 to keep the water tapes running on the roof so as to cause constant water seepage into the premises. Also that he caused damages to wall and roof, to which, it costed the plaintiff over Rs.1.00 lac, in getting the plaster of paris and plastic emersion paint. Also that due to heavy seepage of water into the premises, a substantial damage was caused to the roof, walls and ceilings, thereby he suffered loss of Rs.1.00 lac, besides the seepage also, it caused foul smell. Also that the seepage has caused damage to the entire electric wiring, and damage to the entire wall to wall carpeting that has again caused loss to the extent of another Rs.1.00 lac. Further, that the costly furnitures got seriously damaged, which effected the peaceful quiet enjoyment of the premises. Thus, detailing the damages to the tenanted premises, the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of damages, for an amount of Rs.4.00 lacs, besides also praying for a permanent injunction against the defendant, his agents and servants, restraining them from causing further damage, creating obstacles or committing tress pass or from interfering in any other manner in the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff in the tenanted premises. Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 3
5. The defendant in contra pleadings, has raised preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, causing no damage to the suit property on the ground that the plaintiff is not residing in the tenanted premises since 01.08.1986, besides has inducted another tenant Harish Jain as subtenant, who in collision with the plaintiff, has caused interference of anti social elements to the extent of causing grievous injuries to him. The defendant has denied the factum of possession of the premises by the plaintiff or causing any damage to the same and thus pleaded dismissal of the suit, and also claiming that the plaintiff was not paying the rent or occupation charges, and that the lease deed being an unregistered one, has been terminated on expiry of the one year, as it was on the yearly basis, and a notice of termination has already been issued, though no counter claim was filed by the defendant.
6. The replication to the written statements was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts as stated in the plaint and denied the averments of the defendants.
Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 4
7. On the basis of the pleadings vide order dated 21.07.1999, the following issues were framed:
i). Whether there was a validly executed lease deed between the parties or the lease deed is a forged document as alleged?(Onus on parties).
ii).Whether the damages were caused to the tenanted premises by the defendant as alleged?(OPP).
iii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so at what amount? (OPP).
iv). Relief.
8. For proving the case, the plaintiff has produced three witnesses. One Sh. Abhay Shanker was examined as PW1, who exhibited the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 and Mark A to I. Ex.PW1/1 is the lease deed. Ex.PW1/2 is the is the site plan and Ex.PW1/3 is the copy of legal notice. Mark A is the photocopy of Power of Attorney, whereas Mark B is the copy of legal notice, Mark C is its reply. Mark D to I & J are the reports of Local Commissioners.
Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 5
9. PW 2 Sh.Ravinder Nath Abhilashi was the handwriting expert. He proved his report as Ex.PW2/1 & photographs as Ex.PW2/2 to 11.
10. PW3 Sh. Diwan Kapoor was a property agent and proved a document Ex.PW3/1 to establish the facts that the defendant would get the lease deed registered.
11. To prove his defence the defendant has examined two witnesses DW1 Dr. Rani Balbir Kaur and DW2 Sh. S.P. Singh, a handwriting expert, who proved his report as Ex.DW2/1 and Negative films as Ex.DW2/A.1 to Ex.DW.2/A.22 and the photo enlargements as Ex.DW2/B.1 to Ex. DW.2/B.22.
12. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel Sh. Ajay Kumar for the plaintiff and Ld. Counsel Sh. Amar Deep Singh for the defendant.
Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 6
13. The issuewise findings of this Court are as follows:
Issue No. 1. Whether there was a validly executed lease deed between the parties or the lease deed is a forged document as alleged?(Onus on parties).
The onus of proving this issue is laid on both the parties.
14. The plaintiff's case is that he was a tenant in the suit premises by virtue of a lease deed executed on 29.10.1986 with the landlord Sh. Joginder Singh Bedi, for creating a tenancy @Rs.1,000/ per month for a period of five years, subject to renewal on the determination of the lease.
Whereas the defendant had questioned the lease deed as a forged document, submitting that the lease deed has never been executed between them, as the same does not bear his signatures. Moreso the said lease deed, if assumed to have been executed then also it was never been registered, so as to have a legal binding force between the parties.
Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 7
15. For establishing the claim on this issue, the plaintiff has produced the ocular evidence of three PWs viz. Sh. Abhay Shankar PW1, Sh. Ravinder Nath Abhilashi PW2 and Sh. Diwan Kapoor PW3. PW1 Sh. Abhay Shankar has exhibited the original lease deed dated 29.10.1986 as Ex.PW1/1, deposing that it bears the signatures of the Joginder Singh Bedi at point A, and also of his brother at point B, and that one Dewan Kapoor(examined as PW3) has witnessed such execution. Also PW3 has deposed that the defendant told the plaintiff in writing that he would get the lease deed registered, vide document Ex.PW3/1.
Through the ocular evidence of PW1 a site plan of the suit premises was exhibited as Ex.PW1/2.This witness has denied the suggestion that the document Ex.PW1/1 was a forged document. The suggestion was also denied that his brother never executed such document. PW3 has given a corroborative ocular evidence that the document Ex.PW1/1 was executed in his presence and he has signed the same at point C. He has also deposed that Joginder Singh Bedi (defendant) also executed one written paper Ex.PW3/1 on which this witness had signed as Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 8 witness at point B. This witness has also denied the suggestion that no such lease deed was ever executed by the defendant.
The plaintiff has also examined one Sh. Ravinder Nath Abhilashi as PW2, who has deposed that he was a practicing handwriting expert, and was retired from the Govt. of India and had extensive study on identification of handwritings and finger prints. He has exhibited his reports as Ex.PW2/1. As per his report, the handwritings/signatures on the lease deed Ex.PW1/1 were of the defendant Joginder Singh Bedi. During the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that no machines were used for comparing the signatures but only optical aids like glasses, cameras and magnifiers were used to compare the signatures. This witness has denied the suggestion that the report was a false one and was in collusion with the plaintiff.
16. Ld. counsel Sh. Ajay Kumar for the plaintiff, has submitted that the lease deed between the plaintiff and the defendant was proved through the ocular evidence of all the three witnesses with the supporting original documents establishing that Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 9 the signatures on the lease deed were of the defendant Joginder Singh Bedi and that the defendant could not establish the contrary and that the execution of such lease deed was witnessed by PW3 and signatures of the defendant on such document.
17. The defendant has produced the evidence of two witnesses, Dr. Rani Balbir Kaur, DW1 and Sh. S.P. Singh, DW2.
DW1 has deposed through her affidavit Ex.D1 that the alleged lease deed dated 29.10.1986 was a forged document, it did not bear the signatures of her husband and that the plaintiff was not in Delhi on 29.10.1986, being an NRI & a permanent resident of Canada. During crossexamination, this witness has admitted that her husband late Sh. Joginder Singh Bedi had let out the first floor of the property i.e. the suit premises on rent with effect from 01.08.1986 to the plaintiff at a rent of Rs.1,000/ per month. To the specific question about lease deed in question, this witness has deposed that as per her knowledge, her husband and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of tenancy, but the lease deed was never executed in writing. On seeing the document Ex.PW1/1, Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 10 this witness denied the signatures on the said document. She has also denied the signatures of her husband on the documents Ex.PW3/1. She has also denied the suggestions in this regard. She has admitted of filing of criminal cases against the plaintiff regarding criminal tress pass and that the FIRs were lodged. It was also admitted that one suit for injunction was filed by her husband against the plaintiff in the year 1986. It was also admitted that her husband had sent a legal notice in the year 1987 to the plaintiff for termination of tenancy.
The defendant has also examined DW2 Sh. S.P. Singh, who had tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW2/A. This witness has exhibited the handwriting report as Ex.DW2/1 and negative films Ex.DW2/A1 to Ex.DW2/A22 and the photo enlargement as Ex.DW2/B1 to Ex.DW1/B22. This witness has admitted that he has not placed the entire negative roll of such positive photos and only the portion containing positive photographs has been placed on record. He has also mentioned that he has done the interse comparison amongst the disputed signatures Q1 to Q15 with contemporary one but the same was not mentioned in his report. Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 11 Similar was his answer regarding comparison amongst the signatures A1 to A7 and that the same were not in his report. He has deposed that the contemporary signatures were not required as the same were already on record. He has also admitted that the handwriting of the document Ex.PW3/1 was not compared by him with the signatures of Mark Q1 to Q15 and on the signatures Mark A1 to A7. He has also admitted that he has not compared the writing appearing on page 7 of lease deed Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW 3/1 encircled at points X. Similar was his answer regarding the signatures at point Y with the writings at point X on both the documents Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW3/1.
18. On the careful perusal of the above evidence led by both the parties, on appreciation on the point in issue in the light of the documents placed and exhibited on record, particularly the legal notice sent through the defendant Joginder Singh Bedi, and also the admissions in the ocular evidence of DW1 that the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a lease agreement on 29.10.1986 with respect to the first floor of the premises in question Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 12 with rent @ Rs.1,000/ per month and the proceeding papers filed before the SDM under Section 145 Cr.P.C., it appears that it is not in dispute, that the plaintiff had entered into a lease agreement on 29.10.1986 with the defendant @Rs.1,000/ per month. The plaintiff has duly established on record the document Ex.PW1/1 i.e. the lease agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant. The denial of signatures on the document Ex.PW1/1 by the defendant and the handwriting report submitted by the DW1&2 were of the lessor weight than that of the evidence led by the witnesses PW1 to 3 on the aspects of execution of the lease agreement dated 29.10.1986 between the plaintiff and the defendant. Though it is admitted by PW1 that the plaintiff is a resident of Canada and is residing there for last 25 to 30 years as per the testimony of PW1, even then, there was no substantive evidence produced by the defendant that on the date i.e. 29.10.1986 for execution of the lease agreement, the plaintiff was not in Delhi, in India. There is also not produced any substantive evidence to prove a contrary with the weight of the evidence of PW 1 to 3 that the document Ex.PW1/1 was not executed for the Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 13 purpose of creating a lease agreement. Thus the aspect of forgery regarding the document Ex.PW1/1 could not be established by the defendant, whereas the plaintiff through its evidence could prove the document Ex.PW1/1 was executed for creating the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant through the evidence of PW1 to 3.
19. Thus, on appreciation of the evidence of PW1 with the evidences of PW2 & 3 with regard to the execution of document Ex.PW1/1, the plaintiff has duly established that the lease deed dated 29.10.1986 was duly executed between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Thus, issue No.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
20. Issues No. 2 & 3 Issue No.2 Whether the damages were caused to the tenanted premises by the defendant as alleged?(OPP).
Issue No.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so at what amount? (OPP).
Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 14 Both the issues have been taken together as they are interlinked and decision of issue No.3 depends on the issue No.2.
To establish these two issues, the onus has been placed on the plaintiff, as for the entitlement of the claim, the plaintiff has to prove that the damages were caused by the defendant to the premises in question, and it has costed some quantified amount, to which he was entitled to recover.
21. The plaintiff has produced the ocular testimony of three PWs to establish the issues, and out of these three PWs, PW2 Ravinder Nath Abhilashi and PW3 Deewan Kapoor, have not spoken even a single word regarding the alleged damages in the premises in question. Thus the case of the plaintiff is based on the sole testimony of PW1 Sh. Abhay Shanker to discharge the onus of proving the damages and the entitlement of the claim of the plaintiff.
Now come to the testimony of PW1, Sh. Abhay Shanker.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Ajay Kumar for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff has proved the alleged damages caused Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 15 by the defendant through the evidence of PW1.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Amar Deep for the defendant has vehemently questioned the legal authority of PW1 to prove the allegations of the damages, relying on the law settled in Janki Vasudev Bhojwani vs Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 435, raising the contentions that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place instead of principal for the facts regarding the damages in the premises as such facts were not in his personal knowledge, not being a resident of the premises, nor an occupant therein, nor a neighbour, being a resident of Karol Bagh, Delhi, an area at a distant place from the suit property, there is no evidence on record to show as to how he came to know about the allegations of damages allegedly caused in the suit premises.
It is observed that as per provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the power of attorney holder can act on behalf of the principal but for acts employed in Order 3 Rules 1 & 2 CPC that confine only in respect of acts done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of the power granted by such instrument. Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 16
22. The contentions of the counsel for the defendant are that the instrument i.e. the power of attorney has not been proved in the court as original of such document was never exhibited in the court nor the author of such power of attorney has entered into the witness box to prove the same, thus even the authority to give testimony for the plaintiff on the point of the allegations of damages to the premises is being questioned on the basis of the judicial opinion expressed by the Apex Court in the above cited authority, i.e. Janki Vasudev Bhojwani vs Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 435.
23. Ld. Counsel Sh. Ajay Kumar for the plaintiff could countered the contentions of the defendant only on the ground that the plaintiff has filed the suit through its attorney, as he was a resident of Canada and was an NRI.
It is worth to mention that the case of the plaintiff is that he is a tenant under the lease deed and thereby a resident of the suit premises at first floor, wherein the damage was caused by the defendant landlord who resides at ground floor in the suit premises. Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 17
24. It is observed that PW1 has deposed in the Court that the plaintiff was his elder brother and he was the holder of power of attorney, copy of which was marked A. It has come on record that the original of such power of attorney has never been produced in the Court to prove the authority to file the suit through such power of attorney, or even to depose the facts in the court on behalf of plaintiff.
25. I have gone through the photocopy Mark A, running into three pages, and to prove such document, neither the author Dr. Ajay Shanker Khandelwal the executant, nor the witnesses mentioned on such document were produced, nor the notary was examined that such document was ever executed and attested by him. The original of such document is also not been produced for the perusal of the court. The date mentions of execution of the said rd document is 3 September, 1987 and as per the testimony of this witness, his brother the plaintiff who was the executant of the same was residing at Canada for last about 20/30 years, with volunteer Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 18 statement that he visits India after every three months and it has not been proved on record, that on the day of execution of such rd power of attorney, i.e. 3 September, 1987, the executant was in India and was present before the notary for attestation of such power of attorney in his favour. Thus this document has never been proved on record to show that the PW1 was authorized to depose on behalf of plaintiff for the facts regarding damages allegedly caused by the defendant in the suit premises, in which the plaintiff was the tenant under the lease deed dated 27.10.1986.
26. It is further observed that there is nothing on record in the testimony of PW1 that he was ever an occupant of the suit premises or was a visitor or was a neighborer to such premises to acquire personal knowledge about the alleged damages. Thus it is clear that this witness had no personal knowledge to state the facts regarding any damages caused to the premises in question, but was based on the tellytale told to him about the alleged damages, makes his testimony a hearsay evidence not admissible in law. Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 19
27. It is further observed that the PW1 has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that any damages were ever caused by the defendant to the premises in question, in his presence, nor the plaintiff has proved such facts through any documentary evidence that any damages caused to the premises by the defendant.
28. It is observed that the plaintiff has not produced nor exhibited any documents in support of his contentions regarding the damages allegedly caused by the defendant to the premises in question. He has only referred the reports of the Local Commissioners (hereinafter referred as LCs) marked D to I and J. Such reports are not proved in the court to read its contents through their authors to produce them for the purpose of cross examination on the contents by the defendant that was a valuable rights for proving such facts on the settled principle of the law of evidence.
Thus such reports as marked D to I & J proves the existence of the facts that during trial some reports were filed by Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 20 some LCs, but to make such reports admissible in law to read its contents, the authors had to be produced by the plaintiff as per the law of evidence, for crossexamination. But unfortunately the plaintiff has not done so.
29. Thus, such LC reports are even not proved on record, as the plaintiff has not taken pain to call either the authors, ie. the LCs or the architect in the witness box to prove such reports. On the cursary perusal of the reports, it is observed that one such document Mark E, makes it clear that the premises in question had certain damages in the building that was a double storied having a barsati and mamty on the second floor terrace, somewhere constructed in 195456. Such report pertained to the year 1990 i.e. after a long span of 36 years of the construction of such building. As per the lease deed, the first floor was the tenanted premises let out to the plaintiff and the defendant was an occupant of the ground floor of the same premises. There was nothing established on record as to how he was concerned with the damages on the roof.
Further,one cannot forget the natural & ordinary depletion Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 21 of the building structure specially the terrace, & it can be assumed to have an implication in the report of the LC on the damages.
It is observed that there is nothing on evidence to show as to how the defendant, who was an occupant of the ground floor was responsible to cause such damages. PW1 who was not even having an authority to depose on such damages as he had no personal knowledge about such facts, as he was neither an occupant nor was the visitor, nor a resident of the neighbourhood area nor he was the witness to the acts of alleged damages ever caused by the defendant.
The legal proposition is clear that as per the provisions of Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the power of attorney holder could only depose for the principal regarding the acts for which either he had personally rendered such acts or participated or had personal knowledge of such facts. The reliance is placed on the law settled in Janki Vasudev Bhojwani vs Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439.
30. Further, on the face of the provisions under Order 3 Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 22 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, it is also well settled principle of law that only a person, by entering into a witness box, can depose for the acts he had personal knowledge, so that he can be put for cross examination by the opposite party on such facts and the power of attorney holder could only depose for the principal regarding such acts, if he had personally rendered such acts or had personal knowledge about such acts, as per the observation in the case titled as Usha Ranganathan Vs. N.K.V. Krishnan & Anr., AIR 2009 Madras 178, wherein it was held by the Apex Court: "The term "acts" would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be crossexamined." In the above noted case Ld. Apex Case has also discussed the law settled in the case of Janki Vasudev Bhojwani vs Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439.
As the plaintiff has not entered into the witness box for the purpose of crossexamination regarding the facts of damages and the power of attorney holder was not authorized to do so, thus, Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 23 the plaintiff has failed to established on record that the defendant had caused any damages to the premises in question.
31. The plaintiff for its entitlement of the claim had to establish with more specification that a particular amount of damages was caused to the tenanted premises on a particular date, time, month or during a specified period. The plaintiff had to establish specifically through an independent evidence that such damages were caused either by the defendant or through some acts of defendant. Unfortunately the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove either the quantam of damages ever caused to the premises in question or about the persons who had caused such damages on the particular point of time.
32. It was an admitted case of the plaintiff that he was a NonResident Indian, residing in Canada for last 25 to 30 years and used to visit Delhi only after three months for a very short span of period. It is not established on record that on visit to India whether he used to stay in the suit premises and, if so, for how much period. Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 24 Further, it also not established on record as to whether any damages were caused to the premises in question by any person, whether it was defendant or any other in the presence of the plaintiff or even in the presence of the power of attorney holder who was examined as PW1.
33. Also it is well established on record that the lease deed dated 29.10.1986 was executed by the plaintiff and the defendant, but the fact remains established on record that it was `an unregistered document', that needed to be compulsorily registered as per the provisions of Registration Act to have legal effect and binding. Being an unregistered document, it could only be read for a collateral purpose, i.e. also to treatonly for the `yearly' tenancy of the suit premises that automatically terminates after one year of its st st execution i.e. on 1 August 1987, as it was to take effect from 1 August 1986, as per the case of the plaintiff.
34. The plaintiff has failed to establish on record that the tenancy was renewed ever after expiry of one year or even after Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 25 five years on the termination of the lease after five years as stipulated in the lease document. There is nothing on record that the lease deed was ever consented to be renewed or continued after one year or even after its termination even after five years. As per such lease document the renew of the tenancy after five years was subject to confirmation and consent of the landlord, the defendant. Rather a legal notice terminating tenancy after one year was proved on record.
35. The violation of lease terms are also proved on record as it was admitted by PW1 that the plaintiff had sublet the premises to one Sh. Biwari Castings in the year 1992, that is even after the 5 years of its execution. As after 5 years the lease deed automatically terminates. And there is nothing on record that for subletting, the consent in writing was obtained from the defendant.
It is also a matter of record that the plaintiff himself was a Non Resident Indian and he or his family was never an occupant as tenant in occupation of the tenanted premises as he used to visit India only occasionally after 3 months. It seems that the lease Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 26 deed was executed with intentions only to sublet to some other persons to gain monetarily for the property belonged to the defendant.
36. There was not an iota of evidence to prove that any damages were ever caused by the defendant, to the tenanted premises. Also there was no evidence to show the quantum of such alleged damages to the premises in question.
37. Thus, in the above noted circumstances, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove either the quantum of damages or the person responsible for damages to the tenanted premises or even the rate of amount used or spent by the plaintiff in repairing any such damages, as no receipts of such expenses were ever proved on record.
38. The plaintiff also could not establish as to how he was entitled to claim any injunction against the defendant who was admittedly an owner of the property and after termination of lease Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 27 deed, the plaintiff could not claim such injunction against the rightful owner of the suit premises.
Thus, the plaintiff could not establish any of the issues No. 2 or 3. Thus, both the issues No.2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff.
39. Relief.
On the basis of above findings on the issue Nos. 2 and 3, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. No orders as to costs.
File be consigned to R/Room.
Announced In the open Court (Dr. Archana Sinha) 9 Day of March, 2011. Addl. District Judge, th Centl.04, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit No.000300/08/2002 Ajay Shanker Vs. Joginder Singh Page No. 28