Delhi District Court
Sunita Yadav vs . Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan on 25 April, 2012
Sunita Yadav Vs. Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHREYA ARORA: CIVIL JUDGE-1,
SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
Suit No. 262/11
Case ID No. 02403C0086632011
Smt. Sunita Yadav,
W/o Sh. Ranbir Yadav,
R/o B-4/3154, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110 070. ................Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan
W/o Late Sh. Rajan Panikar,
R/o Flat No. 11-C, DDA ( LIG) Flats,
IInd Floor, Ber Sarai, New Delhi. ..............Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.04.2011
Date of reserving the Judgment : 12.04.2012
Date of pronouncement : 25.04.2012
Decision : Decreed
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS
OF RENT AND DECLARATION
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, declaration and for grant of damages/mesne profits in respect of his premises Suit no.262/11 Page 1 of 7 Sunita Yadav Vs. Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan bearing No. 11-C, DDA (LIG) Flats, IInd Floor, Ber Sarai, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit premises").
2. A decree for possession of the suit premises was passed in favour of the plaintiff upon admitted facts under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in on 12.10.2011. The only aspect that survive for adjudication is the plaintiff's entitlement for arrears of rent and mesne profits.
3. Vide order dated 04.11.2011, this Court framed following issues:
(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of Rs. 45,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum as arrears of rent from January to March, 2011? OPP
(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mesne profits @ Rs. 30,000/- per month w.e.f 01/04.2011? OPP
(c) Relief
4. The defendants have not appeared in court after passing of the decree of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and were proceeded ex parte vide order dt. 09.02.2012. The plaintiff has led exparte evidence and has examined herself as PW-1. The plaintiff has exhibited the site plan as Ex.PW1/A, rent agreement as Ex.PW1/B, legal notice dated 07.03.2011 as Ex.PW1/C, postal receipt as Ex.PW1/D, UPC receipt as Ex.PW1/E, reply dated 21.03.2011 as Ex.PW1/F and statement of Suit no.262/11 Page 2 of 7 Sunita Yadav Vs. Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan account of UCO bank showing the dishonour of the cheque was marked as Mark-A.
5. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the record.
6. On appraisal of the testimony on record and keeping the documents adduced in evidence, my findings on the issues framed are as follows:
ISSUE 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of Rs. 45,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum as arrears of rent from January to March, 2011? OPP
7. The present suit has been filed claiming arrears of rent from January to March, 2011. PW1 has proved the rent agreement dated 01.05.2010 as EX PW1/B vide which the suit premised was given on lease to the defendant on the agreed rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month for eleven (11) months commencing from 01.05.2010 to 31.03.2011 . PW1 has further deposed that the defendant failed to pay the rent of January to March, 2011 as per the terms of the rent agreement. Legal notice dated 07.03.2011 was served upon the defendant terminating the tenancy and making the demand of arrears of rent along with its postal record is Ex PW1/C to Ex PW1/E. PW1 has further deposed that upon receipt of the above notice, the defendant furnished a reply dated 21.03.2011 which is exhibited as Ex PW1/F whereby admitting the rent agreement Suit no.262/11 Page 3 of 7 Sunita Yadav Vs. Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan and the tenancy period for eleven (11) months.
8. PW-1 has deposed on the lines of the plaint and proved various documents and the rent agreement on the basis of which the suit has been filed and the liability of the defendant is based. PW-1 was neither cross examined on behalf of the defendant nor any positive evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant as the suit was proceeded ex parte qua the defendant. The testimony of PW-1 has therefore gone unrebutted. Accordingly, I have no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of documents exhibited as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/F and Mark A.
9. In the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has satisfactory proved that the defendant is in arrears of rent for the months of January to March, 2011.
10.Hence, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mesne profits @ Rs. 30,000/- per month w.e.f 01.04.2011? OPP
11. The tenancy in this case was duly terminated on 31.03.2011 vide legal notice dated 07.03.2011. To claim mesne profits @ Rs. 30,000/- per month, the plaintiff was supposed to prove the prevailing market rent for the period in question at the rate claimed. To Suit no.262/11 Page 4 of 7 Sunita Yadav Vs. Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan prove this he has not led any cogent evidence to prove market rent of the suit premises. He has placed on record site plan, rent agreement legal notice dated 07.03.2011 along with postal record, reply dated 21.03.2011 and statement of account of UCO bank showing the dishonour of the cheque was marked as Mark-A. These documents relate to creation and termination of tenancy which has no bearing on the issue which requires adjudication, namely the mesne profits. The plaintiff has neither produced any lease deed of the property in the area of the suit premises for the relevant period nor has he produced any witness like property agent etc. who could have thrown light on the prevailing rate of rent. In the absence of any evidence, he has not substantiated his claim that the suit property could fetch rent @ 30,000/- per month. Therefore, I deem it fit to grant mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month which is the rent disclosed in rent agreement dated 01.05.2010 between the parties as that is the only document placed on record. The tenancy of the defendant was terminated w.e.f. 31.03.2011.
12. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore liable to be decreed for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.04.2011 till repossession of suit premises. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest thereon @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 01.04.2011 till Suit no.262/11 Page 5 of 7 Sunita Yadav Vs. Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan repossession of suit premises. The plaintiff would further be entitled to recover arrears towards electricity, water and maintenance charges. Security deposit if any, and the amount received after 31.03.2011 as use and occupation charges from the defendant shall be adjusted towards the outstanding liability.
13.This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE 3 Relief
14. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs. 15,000/- per month for the months of January to March, 2011. The plaintiff would further be entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2011 till repossession of suit premises alongwith interest thereupon @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 01.04.2011 till repossession of suit premises. The plaintiff would also be entitled to recover arrears towards electricity, water and maintenance charges. Security deposit if any, and the amount received after 31.03.2011 as use and occupation charges from the defendant shall be adjusted towards the outstanding liability.
15.Suit is decreed in the aforesaid terms against the defendant. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of Suit no.262/11 Page 6 of 7 Sunita Yadav Vs. Anita Panikar @ Anita Diwan the plaintiff and against the defendant.
16.Decree sheet be drawn accordingly on furnishing of adequate court fees. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open (SHREYA ARORA)
Court on 25.04.2012 CIVIL JUDGE-1 (SOUTH DISTRICT)
(Judgment contains 7 pages.) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit no.262/11 Page 7 of 7