Delhi District Court
Amit Goel vs Parasmal Jain on 10 March, 2016
Page 1 of 24
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA, ADJ01 (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS491/11
Unique Case ID No.02406C0130772011
Amit Goel
S/o Sh. T.C. Goyal
S33, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi
........................ Plaintiff
Vs.
Parasmal Jain
S/o Sh. J.P. Jain
Flat no.405, 18C/1, III Floor,
Khasra no.1151/3,
Near Police Station, Village Mehrauli,
TehsilHauz Khas, New Delhi
Also At:
H.No.206, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi110016
....................... Defendant
Date of Institution : 28.05.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 01.03.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.03.2016
Suit for Injunction, Possession, Damages, Recovery of Arrears of
Rent and other Consequential Relief
J U D G M E N T : CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 2 of 24
1. The present suit was filed by plaintiff against the defendant on 27.05.2011. The brief facts of the suit as narrated in the Plaint are as follows: "The plaintiff was partner of M/s. Pace Financial Service and is Director of M/s. Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Pace Financial Services merged into M/s. Pace Stock Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2010. The defendant is known to plaintiff since 2006 when he opened a transaction account for dealing in shares in M/s. Pace Financial Services. In the year 2008, the defendant informed the plaintiff about salable property bearing no.405, 18C/1, III Floor, Ridhi Apartment, Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') which was leased to him by the owner Smt. Sita Rani and assured the plaintiff that the said property would be a good investment and that he would facilitate the sale of the aforesaid property. Smt. Sita Rani sold the suit property to plaintiff for a total consideration of ₹3,40,000/ and executed all the requisite documents including registered General Power of Attorney and Will on 19.02.2008 in favour of the plaintiff and also handed over the possession of the suit property to him.
On the request of defendant, the plaintiff leased the suit property to him for residential purpose and CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 3 of 24 parties entered into a written Lease Agreement on 19.02.2008 and the defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of ₹20,000/ by the 7th day of every month. The defendant paid the agreed rent as per the lease agreement on time till 19.11.2008, however, the rent for the month of December, 2008 and January 2009 was paid only in the month of January 2009. At the request of defendant, the lease was extended and accordingly another Lease Agreement dated 19.01.2009 was executed between the parties and the defendant agreed to pay rent of ₹20,000/ per month to the plaintiff. But the defendant did not pay any rent for almost five months and then the plaintiff called the defendant to clear the arrears but the defendant did not pay any rent and after lapse of about 8 months, the plaintiff again called the defendant and the defendant requested him to grant some more time and assured the plaintiff to clear the entire arrears within two months i.e. by January, 2010. The defendant continued living in the premises without paying any rent since January, 2009 on the pretext of financial hardship. The plaintiff finally in March 2010 told the defendant to clear the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises to which the defendant promised to vacate and clear the arrears within a week. But thereafter, defendant started avoiding the plaintiff and did not attend his calls. Accordingly, the plaintiff on CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 4 of 24 14.05.2010 issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon to pay the arrears, damages and to vacate the premises within 15 days. As neither the defendant vacated the premises nor paid arears of rent, so the plaintiff again sent a legal notice on 06.12.2010 to the defendant to vacate the premises and to pay the arrears and damages. But the defendant failed to do so. In March, 2011, the defendant threatened the plaintiff that he would sell the suit property. Hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for possession of suit property and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits alongwith interest."
2. After service of summons, the defendant filed the Written Statement on 07.10.2011 wherein he stated that he was living in the suit property as owner of the suit property as he had purchased the same in December, 2007 from Smt. Sita Rani, though no sale/purchase documents were executed between him and Smt. Sita Rani. He further stated that he was having a share trading client account in respect of the share transaction with the plaintiff's company M/s. Pace Financial Services and since he had incurred losses in the month of January 2008, so, he issued some cheques in favour of the plaintiff's company which got bounced due to insufficient funds and hence he persuaded the plaintiff to get the suit property as security against the due CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 5 of 24 payments and the plaintiff agreed with condition that the documents would be registered directly in his favour and the defendant, as such under pressure of the heavy losses and bounced cheques, asked Smt. Sita Rani to directly execute the documents in favour of the plaintiff, upon which the documents were executed by Smt. Sita Rani in favour of the plaintiff. He further stated that the plaintiff at the time of execution of the documents in respect of the suit property, asked the defendant to sign a blank paper and in good faith he signed the blank paper as he had never any apprehension that the plaintiff would blackmail the defendant and misuse the said blank paper. He further stated that the defendant was never a tenant of the plaintiff in the suit property nor paid any rent towards the alleged lease agreement and hence no question arose about the payment of any rent to the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff filed Replication to the Written Statement of the defendant wherein he denied almost all the averments of the defendant and reiterated & reaffirmed the contents of his Plaint.
4. During admission/denial of documents, the defendant admitted the plaintiff's documents i.e. GPA dated 19.02.2008 (Ex.P1) and Will dated 19.02.2008 (Ex.P2), both documents executed by CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 6 of 24 erstwhile owner Smt. Sita Devi in favour of the plaintiff with respect to suit property. Though he admitted his signature on Lease/Rent Agreement of 19th February, 2008 but stated that his signature was taken on blank paper. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 14.09.2012:
1. Whether the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is not that of landlord and tenant? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for? OPP
5. Relief.
5. In plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as one and the only witness i.e. PW1. In defendant's evidence, the defendant examined himself as one and the only witness i.e. DW1.
6. The PW1, in his affidavit of evidence i.e. Ex.PW1/A, reiterated the submissions made in the Plaint and exhibited the Site plan of CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 7 of 24 suit property as Ex.PW1/1. The DW1/defendant exhibited the bank statement as Annexure D1.
7. I have heard the final arguments from counsel Sh. Rajesh Rai for plaintiff. Though part arguments were addressed by counsel Sh. S.P. Sharma for defendant on 19.11.2015 and further time was sought by him for addressing remaining arguments, but thereafter he never appeared to address arguments. Though liberty was granted to defendant to file written arguments, but no written arguments have been filed by the defendant till date. I have perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO.1 Whether the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is not that of landlord and tenant?
8. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. But the defendant has utterly failed to discharge this onus. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of suit property and the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit property vide Lease/Rent Agreement Ex.P3 which was extended by another Rent Agreement Ex.P4, whereas the case of the defendant is that he is not living in the suit property as tenant of plaintiff rather CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 8 of 24 he is living in it as its owner because he had purchased the suit property from Smt. Sita Rani in the year 2007. He has also stated that a blank paper was got signed from him by the plaintiff. Though there is no specific plea in the Written Statement that the said signed blank paper was misused by the plaintiff towards preparation of Rent Agreement, but during arguments, it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the false and fabricated Rent Agreement was prepared by the plaintiff on the said paper. But the plaintiff has denied in his Replication that he had even got the blank paper signed from the defendant. The defendant has failed to prove that he had signed any blank paper and handed over the same to the plaintiff which was misused by the latter to prepare the Rent Agreement. Though in his Written Statement, he had stated that due to incurrence of losses by him in the share trading and the bouncing of his cheques issued to the plaintiff, he got the title documents of the suit property executed directly in the name of the plaintiff as security and also gave a signed blank paper to the plaintiff, but in his entire evidence by way of affidavit, he has not uttered even a single word that he had given any signed blank paper to the plaintiff. Thus the defendant has failed to lead any evidence to prove if he had handed over any signed blank paper to the plaintiff. CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 9 of 24
9. The Court is bound to take note of the circumstances that it is not normal human conduct to give signed papers to other people, particularly to persons who cannot have any occasion to get such signed papers. If the defendant pleads that he had left a signed blank paper with the plaintiff, then he has got a duty to explain satisfactorily before the Court as to what prompted him to do such an act, which is not a normal human conduct. It was held by Division Bench of Hon'ble Nagpur High Court in Dalchand Mulchand & Ors. Vs. Hasanbi W/o Ali Razakhan & Ors., AIR 1938 Nagpur 152, "The initial burden of proving execution of a document when it is denied is upon the person alleging execution. But if nothing else is known then the mere fact that a document is admitted to bear a certain signature and that it comes from proper custody ought to be enough to raise an inference that it was signed with the intention of execution. This inference arises in India directly from Section 114, Evidence Act. Persons do not ordinarily sign documents without intending to execute them; that is not the common course of human conduct, nor yet the common course their public or private business. Consequently if any person wants to rely on an exceptional circumstances, if he wants to show that in some particular instance the ordinary rule was CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 10 of 24 abrogated, surely he must prove it and thus the burden shifts on him."
10. Similarly in the present case, the burden had shifted on the shoulders of the defendant, when he said that he had given a blank paper with his signature to the plaintiff. But he has failed to discharge the said burden. In his evidence, neither the defendant has said that he had given any signed blank paper to the plaintiff nor stated any reason for giving a blank paper with his signature to the plaintiff. If as per his own version, he, in order to create security towards the payment of dishonoured cheques issued by him to the plaintiff, had got the sale documents of suit property executed from Ms. Sita Rani in favour of the plaintiff, then where was the need to give any blank paper with his signature to the plaintiff? Once a party admits his signature on a document, then the burden of proof is on him to prove that the document was blank when he had signed. Similarly in the present case, once the defendant had admitted his signatures on the Rent Agreement i.e. Ex.P3, the burden of proof that the said document was blank when he had signed, shifted upon him. But he has failed to discharge the burden. No plausible reason is given by the defendant as to why he would sign blank paper at the instance of the plaintiff when he, as per his own version, had CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 11 of 24 got the title documents of the suit property executed in favour of the plaintiff? If a document is proved to bear a certain signature and that it comes from proper custody, then it ought to be enough to raise an inference that it was signed with the intention of execution. Thus as per Sec.114 Evidence Act, the presumption can be drawn that the Rent Agreement Ex.P3 was duly executed by the defendant. The defendant has failed to rebut the said presumption. Thus, in the absence of any explanation for handing over the signed blank paper to the plaintiff and utter failure of the defendant to prove the handing over of such document to plaintiff (as he has not stated even a single word about it in his affidavit of evidence also), the plea of the defendant regarding handing over of signed blank paper is rejected.
11. The plaintiff/PW1, had deposed in his affidavit of evidence i.e. Ex.PW1/A that the defendant was in bonafide need of accommodation and at his request, he had leased the suit property to the defendant vide Lease Agreement dated 19.02.2008 i.e. Ex.P3 at monthly rent of ₹20,000/ and after expiry of the said Lease Agreement, another Lease Agreement dated 19.01.2009 was executed at the request of the defendant for extension of lease. But no suggestion was given to him to CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 12 of 24 deny the said lease/rent agreements. It is settled law that if the opposite party fails to crossexamine a witness on a certain point, then the said party is deemed to have accepted the same as true. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3652, "It is a rule of essential justice that whenever opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in crossexamination, it must follow that evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted."
It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satyendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Jitender Kudsia, 2005 DLT 498, "Section 137 and 138 of Evidence Act Cross examination - If a witness is not crossexamined on a particular point, the opposite party must be deemed to have accepted truth of the statement." It is also held by Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in A.E.G. Carapiet Vs. A.Y. Derderian, AIR 1961 Calcutta 359, "The law is clear on the subject. Wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in crossexamination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 13 of 24 It is wrong to think that this is merely a technical rule of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice."
12. In the present case, the plaintiff/PW1, not only in his evidence by way of affidavit but also during his crossexamination, categorically stated that the suit property was let out by him to the defendant after purchasing the same from Smt. Sita Rani. But neither was he crossexamined on this point nor even any suggestion was given to deny the said fact. Hence, in view of the abovesaid caselaws, the version of the PW1 is deemed to be admitted by the defendant. It is pertinent to mention here that though the PW1 was crossexamined on four different dates, but on none of the occasions, he was given any suggestion to deny the fact that the defendant was inducted as tenant by him; rather a suggestion was given to him during his crossexamination conducted on 03.01.2015 that initially the rent agreement was for one year; and the said suggestion amounts to admission of defendant that rent agreement was executed between the parties.
13. It is also pertinent to mention here that though the PW1 in his affidavit of evidence i.e. Ex.PW1/A had categorically deposed that the legal notices dated 14.05.2010 i.e. Ex.P5 and dated 06.12.2010 i.e. Ex.P6 were issued and served upon the CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 14 of 24 defendant, but no crossexamination of PW1 was conducted on this point. Since the defendant has not put any question to PW1 nor given any suggestion to deny the service of legal notices i.e. Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, so the service of the said notices upon him is deemed to be admitted by him. It is also pertinent to mention here that in his crossexamination, the defendant/DW1 had not categorically denied the service of said legal notices, as he had simply stated that he did not remember whether he had received the said notices. In these legal notices, it was categorically stated that the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit property by the plaintiff vide Lease Deed dated 19.01.2009 at monthly rent of ₹20,000/. Since despite service of said notices, no reply was sent by the defendant to plaintiff denying the factum of landlord and tenant relationship between them, so adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the defendant has failed to prove that there was no landlord and tenant relationship between him and the plaintiff, whereas the plaintiff has proved the said relationship. Hence, it is held that there existed landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant vide the Rent Agreements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and therefore, the Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 15 of 24 ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed for?
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit property vide registered GPA and Will i.e. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, and the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit property by him vide Rent Agreements i.e. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Though the defendant has admitted the execution of GPA and Will in favour of the plaintiff by the erstwhile owner Ms. Sita Rani, but his plea is that he himself had purchased the suit property from Ms. Sita Rani in the year 2007 but asked her to execute the title documents in favour of the plaintiff as he did so for furnishing security to the plaintiff towards his dishonored cheques. This is his admitted case that no title documents were ever executed by Ms. Sita Rani in his favour. It is settled law that immovable property of value ₹100/ or more could be transferred only by way of a written registered instrument. As per Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the sale of a tangible immovable property of the value of ₹100/ and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument. Since there is no written document in favour of the CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 16 of 24 defendant with respect to the suit property, so, obviously he could not be said to be its owner. On the other hand, he has admitted the registered GPA and Will i.e. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in favour of the plaintiff. Though a transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be made by a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance (sale deed), but it is also settled law that a right to possession of an immovable property arises not only from a complete ownership right in the property but having a better title or a better entitlement/right to possession of the property than qua the person who is in actual physical possession thereof. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pyarelal Vs. Sheela Devi & Ors., RFA 82/2013, Decided on 03.12.2014 as follows:
"To succeed in a suit for possession, appellant has to show better title than the person from whom possession is claimed, that is, respondent no.2. Even though appellant has failed to prove complete ownership right in the suit property in view of the Suraj Lamp (Supra), however, appellant has established better title in his favour in view of the documents all dated 2nd February, 1989, which have not been disputed by respondent nos. 1 and 2."
15. It has also been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Suresh CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 17 of 24 Kumar Vs. Saroj Atal, 2012(189) DLT 285 that in a suit for possession a plaintiff has to show better title i.e. entitlement than that of the defendant and even if the plaintiff fails to prove the ownership rights stricto sensu to the extent of entitlement of possession, the defendant cannot defend the suit for possession once no title or interest in the suit property is claimed by him.
16. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shri O.P. Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Shri Akshay Lal & Ors., 2012 (188) DLT 525, "No doubt, documents such as Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will, etc. do not strictly confer ownership rights as a sale deed, however, such documents create certain rights in an immovable property, though which are strictly not ownership rights but definitely the same can be construed as entitling the persons who have such documents to claim possession of the suit property inasmuch as at least the right to the suit property would stand transferred to the person in whose favour such documents have been executed."
17. Hence, in view of the abovesaid caselaws, it is clear that though the documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 have not strictly conferred any ownership in the plaintiff but certainly he has better title than the CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 18 of 24 defendant and he can seek possession of the suit property from the defendant on the basis of these documents. The execution of these documents by the erstwhile owner in favour of the plaintiff has been admitted by the defendant. While dealing with issue no. 1, it is already held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant in view of the Rent Agreements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Since the last Rent Agreement i.e. Ex.P4 expired on 19.12.2009, so the tenancy had stood determined on the said date due to efflux of time. As the tenancy of defendant has already stood determined, so, he is liable to vacate and handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Hence it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. ISSUE NO.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent as prayed for?
18. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in this regard is that the defendant has not paid the rent @ ₹20,000/ per month w.e.f. 19.01.2009 till the date of termination of tenancy by efflux of time i.e. till 19.12.2009. The CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 19 of 24 plaintiff/PW1, in his evidence by way of affidavit, categorically deposed that the defendant had not paid the rent of ₹2,20,000/ for the period starting from 19.01.2009 to 19.12.2009 despite service of legal demand notices Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. But despite his categorical deposition neither was he crossexamined on this point nor even any suggestion was given to him to deny the fact of nonpayment of rent by the defendant. Thus, it is deemed admitted by the defendant that he has not paid the rent w.e.f. 19.01.2009 to 19.12.2009. Otherwise also it is not his case that he had paid any rent to the plaintiff. As it is already held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant, therefore, the defendant was liable to pay rent to the plaintiff as agreed vide Rent Agreements. But since it has stood proved that the defendant has not paid the rent w.e.f. 19.01.2009 to 19.12.2009, so, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent @ ₹20,000/ per month for the abovesaid period from the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed interest on arrears of rent @ 18% per annum. This Court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable rate of interest as he has suffered loss because he has been deprived of from making use of his money by the defendant. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if plaintiff is granted CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 20 of 24 pendentelite interest @12% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization. Hence this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. ISSUE NO.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for?
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. So far as the mesne profits is concerned, the evidence from plaintiff's side is only oral testimony of PW1 who has deposed that even after the determination of lease period on 19.12.2009, the defendant did not handover the physical possession of the suit property and thus he is entitled to recover mesne profits/damages @ ₹25,000/ per month. It is settled law that even if the plaintiff has not led any evidence to substantiate the claim with respect to mesne profits, the Court can take judicial notice of enhancement of rent. It has been held in Vinod Khanna & Ors. Vs. Bakshi Sachdev (Deceased) through LRs & Ors., AIR 1996 Delhi 32 that for determination of mesne profits in a suit for possession of rented premises, in cases where no evidence is led by landlord in respect of increase of rent, judicial notice can be taken of the fact of increase of rents in and around Delhi which is city of growing CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 21 of 24 importance. Rent for premises in the said matter was ₹6000/. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the Trial Court was justified in fixing compensation/mesne profits at ₹10,000/ by taking judicial notice of increase in rent. Even the Apex Court has taken judicial notice of the fact of universal escalation of rent and raised rent of disputed premises by taking such judicial notice in case of D.C. Oswal Vs. V. K. Subbiah, AIR 1992 SC 184. In the matter of S. Kumar Vs G.R. Kathpalia & Anr., 77(1999) DLT 266(DP) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows: "Respondent/landlord has not led any documentary evidence of the present market rent of other premises in the vicinity. However, keeping in mind the prime location of the suit premises, its proximity to community centre and commercial activity, we are of the view that a sum of ₹25,000/ per month would be a just and fair amount by way of damages/mesne profits."
It is pertinent to mention here that the Counsel for defendant had not crossexamined the PW1 on the point of rate of damages/mesne profits. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Roger Enterprises Pvt. Limited Vs. Renu Vaish, 71 (1998) DLT 617 (DB) has observed, "There is no crossexamination of the plaintiff's CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 22 of 24 witness on the point of rate of damages/mesne profits. This shows that the defendant/appellant never challenged the damages/mesne profits as stated by the plaintiff in her evidence before the court. When there is no rebuttal to the rate of damages/mesne profits suggested by the plaintiff, the defendant cannot make an issue about it at this stage."
20. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, I am of considered opinion that this Court can take judicial notice of the possibility of similarly located premises fetching rent per month even in the absence of any evidence being led by the plaintiff to substantiate the same. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 has gone unopposed on the point of rate of mesne profits and therefore keeping in view this fact and the area/size and location of the suit property, this Court is of considered opinion that mesne profits @ ₹25,000/ per month are reasonable enough. Since the tenancy of defendant had stood determined by efflux of time on 19.12.2009, so the possession of suit property by defendant has become illegal and unauthorized w.e.f. 20.12.2009. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits from him w.e.f. 20.12.2009. The plaintiff has claimed interest on mesne profits @ 18% per annum. Since the plaintiff CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 23 of 24 has suffered loss on account of being deprived of making use of his property, so, he is entitled to reasonable rate of interest. This Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would sufficiently meet if plaintiff is granted pendentelite interest @12% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization. Hence, the plaintiff is held entitled to claim from defendant mesne profits @ ₹25,000/ per month w.e.f. 20.12.2009 till the day of handing over of vacant possession of the suit property, alongwith pendentelite interest @ 12% per annum and future interest @6% per annum till realization. Hence, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
21. The following reliefs have been granted in this suit:
(i) Decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is directed to vacate and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property bearing flat no.405, III Floor, 18C, Ridhi Apartment, Ward No.1, Khasra No.1151/3 in Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi as shown in site plan Ex.PW1/1;
CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain Page 24 of 24
(ii) Decree of recovery of rent is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant @ ₹20,000/ per month w.e.f. 19.01.2009 to 19.12.2009 alongwith pendentelite interest @ 12% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization.;
(iii) Decree of recovery of mesne profits is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant @ ₹25,000/ per month w.e.f. 20.12.2009 till the handing over of vacant possession of suit property alongwith pendentelite interest @ 12% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization.
(iv) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
22. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. (Announced in open Court on 10.03.2016) (Navita Kumari Bagha) ADJ01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi CS No.491/11 Amit Goel Vs. Parasmal Jain