Delhi District Court
Abdul Mannan vs Mohd. Anas on 12 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KHATRI, CIVIL JUDGE-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 1325/2020
CNR No. DLCT03-003023-2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Abdul Mannan
S/o Late Sh. Abdul Hanif
R/o 2400, Gali Gudriyan Wali,
Turkman Gate, Delhi-110006. ............. Plaintiff
Versus
Mohd. Anas
S/o Abdul Saleem
R/o H. No. Flat No. A-290/6,
Khasra No. 131, Left Portion, 2nd Floor,
Gali No. 9, Village Wazirabad,
Near Amina Masjid, Delhi-110084.
At Also:
H. No. T-456, Gali Pahar Wali, Ahata Kidara,
Sadar Bazar, Idgah Road,
Delhi-110006. ............. Defendant
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY OF RENT/
DAMAGES AND FUTURE DAMAGES/ MESNE PROFIT.
Date of Institution : 08.10.2020
Date of Reserving for Judgment : 05.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 12.06.2025
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of possession regarding property/Flat bearing no. A-290/6, Khasra No. 131, Left Portion, 2nd Floor, Gali No.9, Village Wazirabad near Amina Masjid, Delhi-110084 and for recovery of rent/ damages of Rs.42,400/- and future damages/ mesne profit @ Suit No. 1325/2020 Abdul Mannan Vs. Mohd. Anas pg. no. 1/8 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KHATRI KHATRI Date:
2025.06.12 17:14:34 +0530 Rs.10,000/- p.m. against the defendant till the possession of the suit is handed over to the plaintiff alongwith costs of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of Flat bearing no. A-290/6, Khasra No. 131, Left Portion, 2nd Floor, Gali No.9, Village Wazirabad near Amina Masjid, Delhi-110084 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). It is submitted that the defendant was inducted as tenant in suit property i.e. Flat bearing A-290/6, Khasra No. 131, left Portion, 2nd Floor Gali No.9, Village Wazirabad, Near Amina Masjid, Delhi-110084 @ Rs.5,300/- p.m., vide Rent Agreement dated 20.08.2019. It is submitted that as per the said rent agreement, the term of tenancy was 11 months and as per clause 11, the tenancy could be terminated by either party by giving one month's notice. It is further submitted that as per clause 2 of rent agreement, the defendant deposited Rs.10,600/- with the plaintiff which is refundable/ adjustable on the expiry of rent agreement or vacation of rented premises. It is further submitted that the plaintiff required the premises under the possession of the defendant for his own requirement, and for that matter he gave a notice dated 12.6.2020, to the defendant, whereby he was given time i.e. till 19.07.2020 to vacate the suit premises. It is further submitted that despite the service of the notice, the defendant has failed to vacate the suit property. The plaintiff also sent the above legal notice to the defendant on his WhatsApp number. It is further submitted that the defendant has not paid the rent since January, 2020. Hence, he is in arrears of rent of 08 months i.e. Rs.42,400/-. It is submitted that the tenancy of the defendant for flat at 2nd floor was contractual which ended with the time period given in the notice dated 19.07.2020 and also due to efflux of Suit No. 1325/2020 Abdul Mannan Vs. Mohd. Anas pg. no. 2/8 SUNIL KHATRI Digitally signed by SUNIL KHATRI Date: 2025.06.12 17:14:43 +0530 time; but the defendant has failed to deliver the possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for ejectment from the premises in dispute and the plaintiff is eligible for repossession of the same. It is further submitted that the plaintiff asked for the possession of the suit premises and for the payment of damages for use and occupation of the suit premises from the defendant several times even after service of the notice, but he has utterly failed to handover the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. Defendant has also not paid any damages/arrears for the use and occupation of the suit premises despite demand. It is further submitted that the defendant is liable for ejectment from the suit property and is liable to pay Rs.42,400/- towards arrears of rent since January 2020, hence he is in arrears of 08 months rent i.e. Rs.42,400/-. The defendant is also liable to pay the damages/mesne profit @ Rs.53,000/- (sic Rs.5300/-) per month, till the suit property is not vacated by him. It was prayed that a decree for possession may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to vacate the Flat bearing No. A-290/6, Khasra No.131, left Portion, 2nd Floor, Gali No.9, Village Wazirabad, Near Amina Masjid, Delhi-110084 and a decree of recovery of Rs.42,400/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit till realization and a preliminary decree for future damages from the date of filing of the suit till realization @ Rs.53,000/- (sic Rs.5300/-) per month. It was further prayed that the defendant be further be directed to clear the dues of electricity as and when become due on the monthly basis as per actual consumption.
3. It was further argued that the cause of action arose when the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit property Suit No. 1325/2020 Abdul Mannan Vs. Mohd. Anas pg. no. 3/8 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KHATRI KHATRI Date:
2025.06.12 17:14:49 +0530 and did not handover possession of the suit property. It is also argued that the court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. It was prayed that the present suit may be decreed.
4. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendant on 21.12.2021 via Whatsapp. As per order dated 02.05.2022, the right of the defendant to file WS was closed and the defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 25.07.2022. Matter was thereafter fixed for ex-parte plaintiff evidence.
5. To prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has relied upon following documents:-
i. The ownership documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
ii. Site plan of the suit property is Ex. PW1/2. iii. Copy of Rent Agreement dated 20.08.2019 is Ex.
PW1/3 (OSR).
iv. Copy of police verification is Ex. PW1/4 (OSR). v. Legal notice dated 12.06.2020 is Ex. PW1/5.
vi. Copy of screen shots is Mark A. Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
6. I have heard the ex-parte arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and perused the record.
7. In the present case, defendant has failed to appear and therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte. As a natural corollary, the evidence of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged. The plaintiff Suit No. 1325/2020 Abdul Mannan Vs. Mohd. Anas pg. no. 4/8 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KHATRI KHATRI Date:
2025.06.12 17:14:56 +0530 has duly proved the ownership of the property vide Ex.PW1/1 i.e. ownership documents GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. He further proved the rent agreement Ex. PW1/3 dated 20.08.2019 entered between the plaintiff and defendant wherein it was clearly mentioned that defendant was inducted as a tenant of the plaintiff on the suit property for a sum of Rs.5300/- as rent per month. Further, the period of the tenancy was to be from 20.08.2019 to 19.07.2020. It was further stipulated that any party can terminate the agreement even prior to the expiry of the tenancy period by giving one month's notice to the other party. It is admitted by the plaintiff that he has received a sum of Rs.10,600/- as refundable security deposit from the defendant at the time of the execution of the rent agreement. The plaintiff has also proved police verification report of the defendant Ex. PW1/4. It is averred by the plaintiff that defendant has not paid any rent since January, 2020 and in arrears of rent of Rs.42,400/- till the filing of the present suit. Due to the aforesaid conduct of the defendant, plaintiff has sent a legal notice Ex. PW1/5 dated 12.06.2020 to the defendant thereby determining the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the suit property.
8. In view of the aforesaid evidence presented by the plaintiff to prove the factum of tenancy and its determination, it was for the defendant to dispute that no such agreement was entered into between the parties or the tenancy was not determined. However, defendant has failed to do so. Since defendant was proceeded ex-parte and no evidence was led by him despite service of summons, there is nothing on record which casts any doubt on the case of plaintiff. The case of plaintiff has remained unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted. The Suit No. 1325/2020 Abdul Mannan Vs. Mohd. Anas pg. no. 5/8 SUNIL KHATRI Digitally signed by SUNIL KHATRI Date: 2025.06.12 17:15:03 +0530 averments made by the plaintiff stand duly proved by way of documents filed with the suit. Hence, plaintiff has duly discharged its burden of proof under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Accordingly, plaintiff has successfully proved its case on the scale of balance of probabilities qua the relief of possession of the suit property against the defendant by ejectment of the defendant; recovery of Rs.42,400/- (Forty Two Thousand and Four Hundred) towards the arrears of 08 months of rent since January, 2020 till the filing of the suit; recovery of damages/mesne profit @ Rs.5300/- per month from the date of filing of the present suit till the delivery of possession to the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has dropped the prayer clause (d) of the plaint vide statement dated 26.09.2024 qua the direction to clear the dues of electricity by the defendant.
9. In the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for preliminary decree for future damages/mesne profit. However, in the evidence affidavit, it has been clearly stated by him that he is claiming future damages/mense profit @ Rs.5,300/- per month. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, order for an inquiry regarding the future damages/mense profit as per Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, 1908 would be futile exercise, when the plaintiff has confined his relief to the recovery of fixed rent/damages @ Rs.5,300/- per month. The court finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case titled as "Vella Veeran Chetti Vs. Veeran Chetti, AIR 1938 Mad 727, wherein it was held that-
"when the plaintiff made it clear that she confined her relief to the recovery of fixed rents which had been agreed upon between the parties, the amount Suit No. 1325/2020 Abdul Mannan Vs. Mohd. Anas pg. no. 6/8 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KHATRI KHATRI Date:
2025.06.12 17:15:10 +0530 was definitely ascertained and there was no occasion for framing a preliminary decree so that there may be another ascertainment of amount due to the plaintiff.
The court was not bound to pass a preliminary decree in the first instance. It is therefore perfectly competent to the court, without directing an inquiry, to pass a decree finally determining the amount of profits subsequent to the institution of the suit if it is made out it is not necessary to make such an inquiry and cannot be said that such a decree is not final or is incapable of execution nor would it be in contravention of the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code."
In view of the above, there is no need to pass any preliminary decree regarding the damages/mesne profit accrued to the plaintiff from the suit property. Therefore, the case is decided finally through the present judgment.
10. Plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.42,400/- i.e. arrears of 08 months of rent, however, considering the prevailing market conditions, it is not considered equitable to grant this high rate of interest. Accordingly, simple interest @ 6% per annum is considered reasonable and equitable.
11. In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and it is held that plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs:-
a. Decree of possession of the suit property i.e. property/Flat bearing no. A-290/6, Khasra No. 131, Left Portion, 2nd Floor, Gali No.9, Village Wazirabad near Amina Masjid, Delhi-110084 against the defendant by ejectment of the defendant;
b. Decree of recovery of Rs.42,400/- (Forty Two Suit No. 1325/2020 Abdul Mannan Vs. Mohd. Anas pg. no. 7/8 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KHATRI KHATRI Date:
2025.06.12 17:15:17 +0530 Thousand and Four Hundred) with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization;
c. Decree of recovery of damages/mesne profit @ Rs.5300/- per month from the date of filing of the present suit until delivery of possession of the suit property (The execution of this relief stands stayed till the payment of deficient court fees by the plaintiff in the court as per the provisions of Section 11 of The Court Fees Act).
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
Announced in the court SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
on 12.06.2025. 2025.06.12
17:15:24
+0530
(Sunil Khatri)
Civil Judge-06/Central/Delhi
12.06.2025
Suit No. 1325/2020 Abdul Mannan Vs. Mohd. Anas pg. no. 8/8