Delhi District Court
Sh Ashwani Bharel vs M/S Bel Esprit Technologies Pvt. Ltd on 11 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE - 02, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018
CNR No. DLSW010171702018
IN THE MATTER OF:
1.Sh Ashwani Bharel S/o Sh Randhir Singh Bharel R/o 855, Saini Mohalla Village Shahbad Mohommad Pur New Delhi - 110061 ... Plaintiff v.
1. M/s Bel Esprit Technologies Pvt. Ltd Through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani Regd. Office at: 622/2nd Azad Hind Apartment Sector 9, Dwarka New Delhi - 110075 ... Defendant Date of institution of suit: 27.09.2018 Date of judgment reserved: 20.09.2019 Date of pronouncement of judgment: 11.10.2019 EX PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff, namely, Ashwani Bharel (hereinafter "plaintiff") has preferred a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018 Page No. 1/9 recovery of electricity and water charges, pendente lite interest, future interest @24%p.a. against the defendants, namely, M/s Bel Esprit Technologies Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter "defendant No.1"), Sandeep Kumar Yadav (hereinafter "defendant No.2) and Kamal Kant Yadav (hereinafter "defendant No.3").
2. The facts narrated by the plaintiff in the plaint are that plaintiff is the owner of entire built up property bearing No. C-394, Palam Extn. Dwarka, Sector-7, New Delhi, which consist of ground Floor, Second Floor and third Floor whereas the defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff for rent out a hall at the first floor of the property bearing No. C-394, Palam Extn. Dwarka, Sector-7, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property") through its authorized signatory Sandeep Kewal Ramani. After due negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff agreed to let out the suit property for a monthly rent of ₹21,000/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand only) and entered into a rent agreement/ lease deed on 02.11.2017 duly notarized for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 02.11.2017 till 01.11.2020. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the defendant No.2 is the acting director of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 is the wife of the defendant No.2. The tenancy of the defendants commenced on the first day of each English calendar month and expired on the expiry of the last day of every month. The defendants regularly paid the monthly rent at the beginning of every month upto April, 2018, and thereafter the defendants stopped making the payment of monthly rent. The plaintiff visited the suit property and it was observed by the plaintiff that the CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018 Page No. 2/9 defendants were not maintaining the suit property properly and the same was in dilapidated condition.
3. The plaintiff has averred in the paragraph No. 5 of the plaint that the authorised signatory, namely, Sandeep Kewal Ramani had resigned from the defendant No. 1 company and the defendant No. is the acting director of the defendant No. 1 company and the defendant No. 3 is also managing the affairs of the defendant No. 1 company. It is also averred in the same paragraph by the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are in the possession of the suit property and they are the defaulters, who have not paid the rent of the suit property since April 2018.
4. The plaintiff issued a legal notice through his counsel on 07.07.2018 calling upon the defendant No. 1 to vacate the suit property. Despite service of notice, the defendants neither paid the outstanding rent nor vacated, the suit property. Hence, the present suit.
5. The summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants on 27.09.2018 returnable for 03.11.2018. On 03.11.2018, the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 through counsel and Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani also filed his appearance through counsel. Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani on 03.11.2018 moved an application under Ordr I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") seeking deletion of his name from the array of parties. As the plaintiff along with the plaint had moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, CPC seeking ex parte ad-interim injunction order against the defendants, the parties were directed to maintain status quo CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018 Page No. 3/9 of the suit property until the next date of hearing.
6. Subsequently, on 19.01.2019, the defendants filed their written statement and replies to the interim applications - under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, CPC; Order XXXIX, Rule 10, CPC, and Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, moved by the plaintiff; an application under Order I, Rule 10, CPC moved by Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani, and an application under Order I, Rule 10, CPC moved by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
7. This court vide order dated 03.04.2019 observed that the submissions advanced on behalf of Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani, who was the authorised signatory of the defendant No. 1 company were not convincing, as on one hand he stated that he had resigned from the company and had nothing to do and on the other he was present in court on service of summons on the defendant No.1's address, as the registered office address of the defendant No. 1 company was that of the residence of Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani. The defendant Nos. 2, 3 and Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani were accordingly directed to file their director identification number (DIN) along with other requisite forms and supporting documents filed with MCA with regard to their respective resignations. The defendant Nos. 2, 3 and Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani were directed to be present in court on the next date of hearing i.e. 29.05.2019.
8. On 29.05.2019, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed the documents in compliance of order dated 03.04.2019. It is observed that on 29.05.2019 though Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani was not present in CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018 Page No. 4/9 court but an appearance through proxy counsel for Sh. Rajnish Ranjan Counsel for defendant No. 1 is recorded in the order-sheet. The plaintiff on 29.05.2019, moved an application under Order XII, Rule 6, CPC seeking judgment against the defendants.
9. On 19.08.2019 the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not press for the application under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. On perusal of the order sheet, particularly at page No. 4, the second paragraph, it appears a typographical error had crept in and it is has been mentioned as it is observed that either defendant No.2 or defendant No.3 are the signatories to the rent agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. It is observed and held that the words 'neither' and 'nor' have been mentioned as 'either' and 'or'.
10. At this stage, I deem appropriate to exercise the power vested in this court under Section 152, CPC and the typographical error stands rectified.
11. By order dated the application moved by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 under Order I, Rule 10, CPC was allowed and the names of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were deleted from the array of parties. It is also observed that on account of non-appearance on the behalf of the defendant No. 1 on whom the service was effected on 16.10.2018, however, no appearance was filed on the behalf of the defendant No.1, the defendant No. 1 was accordingly, proceeded ex parte on 19.08.2019 and the matter was listed for ex parte evidence on 29.08.2019.
CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018 Page No. 5/912. The plaintiff in its ex-parte evidence, tendered evidence by way of affidavit - Ex.PW1/A. As per the Ex.PW1/A, the plaintiff proved the following documents S.No. Description and date, if any of the Exhibit Mark put on document the document
(a) Photocopy of ownership documents i.e. Ex.PW1/1(Colly.) General Power of Attorney, Will, (OSR) Agreement to Sell, affidavit, receipt, and possession letter
(b) Original rent agreement/ lease deed dated Ex.PW1/2 02.11.2017
(c) office copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW1/3 07.07.2018
(d) Speed post receipt, proof of delivery report Ex.PW1/4 (Colly.) and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act
(e) site plan of the suit property Ex.PW1/5
13. Sh. Gaurav Saini, learned counsel for the plaintiff advanced oral submissions and submitted that the defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff through a rent agreement/lease deed dated 02.11.2017 duly notarized for a period of three years w.e.f. 02.11.2017 till 01.11.2020, for a monthly rent of ₹21,000/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand only). The learned counsel further submitted that the defendant No.1 stopped paying the rent to the plaintiff since April 2018 and were in occupation of the suit property. Learned counsel further submitted that the tenancy of the defendant No.1 stand determined by notice dated 07.07.2018, wherein the plaintiff called upon the defendant No.1 to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the suit CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018 Page No. 6/9 property.
14. Sh. Saini, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant No.1 had failed to pay the arrears of rent/damages and other charges and vacate the suit property and thus the plaintiff is also entitled for damages from the defendant No.1.
15. The plaintiff has presented the suit within the period of limitation. It is also observed that the suit property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and the plaintiff has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this court.
16. I, have carefully perused and examined the case record. On perusal of the original rent agreement/lease deed (Ex.PW1/2), it is observed that though the rent agreement between the parties being for a period of three years and is an unregistered agreement. Though, the averments in the plaint are unrefuted, the tenancy of the defendant is taken as to be that of month to month tenancy. In short, the landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is established. It is also observed that the plaintiff's claim of determining the tenancy by written notice Ex. PW1/3 is unchallenged. The position in law is well settled that an institution of suit and service of summons in a suit preferred by a landlord against the tenant determines the tenancy and is noticed to quit.1
17. From the above evidence, it is proved that the plaintiff had inducted the defendant No.1, as its tenant, who defaulted to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff since April 2018 and has been in 1 See Nopany Investment P. Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) - (2008) 2 SCC 728 pp.22 CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018 Page No. 7/9 occupation of the suit property without paying a single rupee to the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to prove that the defendant No.1 has any right to possess the suit property - a right better than that of the plaintiff, much less a title in itself. This is an appropriate case where the rogue tenant must be evicted by the due process of law and the possession of the suit property must be handed over to the plaintiff by passing a decree of possession in his favour.
18. With regard to the relief of arrears of rent @ ₹21,000/-(Rupees Twenty one thousand only) per month until the date of peaceful vacation and handing over of the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff by the defendant alongwith interest @ 24%p.a., recovery of electricity & water charges, I deem appropriate to pass a decree of possession, decree of recovery of arrears of rent to be calculated at the monthly rent of ₹21,000/-(Rupees Twenty one thousand only) w.e.f. April 2018 until the date of handing over of the possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1; pass a decree of ₹40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand only) towards the outstanding of electricity & water charges and interest on the aforesaid amount @ 8%p.a. w.e.f. from the date of the filing of the suit i.e. 26.09.2018 until the date of actual payment. It is observed that the interest sought by the plaintiff @ 24% p.a is on the way higher side and I deem appropriate that interest of justice would be served by awarding interest to the plaintiff @8%p.a. on the arrears of rent and the arrears of electricity & water charges.
CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018 Page No. 8/919. The suit preferred by the plaintiff is decreed in above terms. The costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Consequentially, all interim applications are disposed off accordingly.
20. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
21. File be consigned to record room only after due compliance and necessary action, as per Rules.
Digitally signed by HARGURVARINDER HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI
SINGH JAGGI Date: 2019.10.11
16:34:42 +0530
Pronounced in the open Court (Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi)
on October 11, 2019 Addl. District Judge-02
South West District
Dwarka Courts Complex, Delhi
CS DJ ADJ No. 1002/2018
Page No. 9/9