Delhi District Court
Smt. Maya Sood vs Sh. Praveen Gupta on 18 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI
CS No.950/18
CNR No.DLET03-001493-2018
Smt. Maya Sood
W/o Sh. Sutender Lal Sud,
R/p 29, Dayanand Block,
Madhuban Road, Shakarpur,
Delhi-110092
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Praveen Gupta
S/o Sh. Shanker Lal Gupta
R/o G-183, 3rd floor,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092
.....Defendant
Date of Institution : 28.09.2018
Date of reserving of judgment : 18.05.2023
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 18.05.2023
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, this court shall decide the present suit for recovery of Rs.2,36,165/- along-with interest.
2. The application of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2018.
CS No.950/18 page no.1/12
3. The brief facts of the case as per the plaint are that plaintiff is the owner/landlady of the suit property bearing shop no.2, Ground Floor, Area measuring 11'6" X 19'9" i.e. 21.09 Sq. meters and one built up Garage on Ground Floor, Area Measuring 28'10 X 12'10" i.e. 34.36 Sq. meters part of property bearing no.29, Fitted with Iron Shutter & Electricity connection, out of khasra no.446, situated in the Abadi of Dayanand Block, Madhuban Road, Shakarpur, in the area of Village Shakarpur, Illaqa Shahdra, Delhi-110092. The defendant vide registered lease deed with security duly registered before SDM having registration no.4836 in Book no.1, Volume No.619, on page no.180 to 184, dated 16.09.2015, had taken plaintiff's premises on rent for three years from 01.10.2015 to 30.09.2018 with terms and conditions mentioned in the said registered lease deed. It is stated that last monthly rent of the premises occupied by defendant is @ Rs.35,805/- exclusive of all other taxes and charges, but defendant failed to clear the arrears of rent to plaintiff. It is further stated that defendant become the defaulter from the beginning of tenancy period and always delay paying the rent. It is further stated that from October, 2016, defendant started delaying the payment of rent and in the month of July, 2017, defendant signed the paper that till 31st July, 2017, he has to pay Rs.1,97,650/- to the plaintiff. However, after that, defendant keep on delaying the rent to the plaintiff on one pretext or the other which results that till 31.12.2017, defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.3,70,165/-. It is further stated that in the 1st week of September, 2017, defendant paid cash of Rs.10,000/- with two cheques of CS No.950/18 page no.2/12 Rs.31,000/- to the plaintiff. It is further stated that in the month end of December, defendant vacated the suit premises without giving any intimation to the plaintiff and handed over the keys of said premises to the plaintiff's servant. So, he failed to pay arrears of rent. After adjusting the security given by defendant, the total outstanding of arrears of rent is Rs.2,36,165/- till the end of December, 2017. Plaintiff sent notice to the defendant.
4. Thus, on the above stated grounds, plaintiff has prayed for a decree of recovery of Rs.2,36,165/- along-with interest @ 15% per annum on the arrears of rent as well as cost of the suit.
5. Summons were issued to the defendant which were duly served. The defendant has filed written statement wherein he vehemently opposed the allega- tions and contentions of the plaintiff. Amongst the preliminary objections, it has been contended in written statement of defendant that plaint of the plaintiff is not properly valued. The defendant has not received any legal notice dated 26.04.2018, rather defendant had received two legal notices by the plaintiff through is advocate one is dated 30.01.2018 and other one is dated 26.06.2018 and in both the said legal notices, facts and circumstances are different. It is de- nied that any alleged lease deed was registered with the SDM. Defendant pro- posed to take the premises on long lease (minimum of 9 years) for his business purposes. However, plaintiff got prepared the lease for a period of three years only, which the defendant was forced to sign, although, the same was not suitable to the defendant for his business purposes. It is denied that defendant was a CS No.950/18 page no.3/12 monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the premises. It is also denied that last monthly rent for the premises occupied by the defendant is Rs.35,805/- ex- clusive of all other taxes and charges. It is denied that defendant became the de- faulter from the beginning of the tenancy period and always delayed in paying the rent. However, defendant had always paid the rent to the plaintiff on time and there was not arrears. It is further stated that last rent payable was Rs.31,000/- per month. Defendant had never signed any paper regarding the de- lay in paying the rent as the defendant never had delayed in paying the rent, then why would defendant will sign the papers for delay in paying the rent. The proof of arrears of rent is not proved by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not filed any paper and calculations regarding the same.
6. Replication to the written statement of the defendant filed by the plaintiff.
7. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 21.05.2018 which are as under:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.2,36,165/-, as prayed for ? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff, whether plaintiff is entitled to the interest @ 15% per annum as prayed for ? OPP
3. Relief."CS No.950/18 page no.4/12
8. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence. To lead evidence, Ms. Maya Sood entered the witness box on behalf of plaintiff company as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, bearing her signatures at point A & B. She relied upon the following documents as follows :-
(i) The original registered rent agreement which is Ex.PW1/A.
(ii) The copy of paper showing arrears f rent is de-exhibited and marked as mark-A.
(iii) The copy of legal notice which is Ex.PW1/B & C.
9. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 16.07.2022.
10. Defendant examined himself as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A & B. He relied upon the documents i.e. legal notice dated 30.01.2018 filed by the defendant which is Ex.DW1/1. The defendant evidence was closed on 26.04.2023.
11. I have heard the submissions made by both the counsels and perused the entire record carefully. The issues wise finding of the court as follows :
Issue no.1.
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.2,36,165/-, as prayed for ?"
12. The onus to prove the issue was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff in her plaint and her testimony contended that she is the owner/landlord of the suit shop. She further contended that a registered lease deed dated 16.09.2015 got CS No.950/18 page no.5/12 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for taking on rent the premises for three years from 01.10.2015 to 30.09.2018.
13. Defendant in his WS admitted that plaintiff was the lessor/landlady of the defendant. Defendant denied that lease deed was registered. However, he stated that he was forced to sign lease deed. Plaintiff has proved the original registered rent agreement and the same is exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. Defendant in his cross-examination admitted his signatures on each page of original registered rent agreement/Ex.PW1/A. Though, he stated that he has not read the complete terms and conditions of the registered lease deed and he has signed it without going through the same.
14. Once the defendant admitted execution of the lease deed Ex.PW1/A and acknowledged his signatures on the same, then in my considered view he cannot denied the implication of the executed document. The executed document cannot be put to nought on the ground that a party has not read the terms and condition of the document. Moreover, defendant has not disclosed as to how and why he was forced to sign the said lease deed. The onus to prove that the lease deed was executed under force, coercion and undue influence was upon the defendant. However, defendant failed to discharge the onus regarding use of force in execution of the lease deed. Thus, I am satisfied that lease deed is validly executed between the parties. The lease deed/Ex.PW1/A also got registered before the concerned authority. So, I am satisfied that lease deed/Ex.PW1/A can be relied upon.
CS No.950/18 page no.6/12
15. The rent agreement Ex.PW1/A shows that defendant was liable to pay rent @ Rs.31,000/- per month from 01.10.2015 to 31.09.2016. Rent @ Rs.32,550/- from 01.10.2016 to 31.09.2017. Rent @ Rs.35,805/- per month from 01.10.2017 to 31.09.2018. A sum of Rs.62,000/- was deposited by the defendant as a security which is to be refunded at the time of vacation of the suit property.
16. Plaintiff in her plaint and evidence by way of affidavit contended that last monthly rent of the premises was of Rs.35,805/- exclusive of other taxes and charges. It is further contended that defendant defaulted in payment of the rent since October, 2016. The arrear of rent till 31.12.2017 is Rs.3,70,165/-. It is further contended that defendant vacated the suit property in the month of December. It is contended that defendant paid a sum of Rs.72,000/- in the 1 st week of 2017 comprises of two cheques of Rs.31,000/- each and Rs.10,000/- cash. It is further contended that a legal notice dated 26.04.2018 was also sent.
17. Plaintiff in her cross-examination deposed that defendant used to pay the rent by way of cheque as well as cash. She admitted that she has not given any receipt of cash amount as the same was not demanded by the defendant. Defendant also admitted in his cross-examination that he used to pay rent by way of cash as well as by way of cheque.
18. Defendant in his WS contended that he has not received any notice dated 26.04.2018. Though, he admitted that he received two legal notices dated 30.01.2018 and 26.06.2018. He further contended that calculation regarding arrears of rent in both the legal notices are different and contradictory. PW1 in CS No.950/18 page no.7/12 her cross-examination stated that she has sent the legal notice dated 30.01.2018. She further contended that she demanded an amount of Rs.2,36,000/- in that legal notice. Though, the legal notice dated 30.01.2018 is not filed on behalf of plaintiff. She stated that she has not sent any other legal notice except legal notice dated 30.01.2018. She further deposed that she does not know how many month's rent is due. However, the total due rent is Rs.2,36,000/- till 2017. She does not know when the first default in payment of rent was committed by the defendant. She admitted that she accepted the amount of Rs.10,000/- in cash and two cheques of Rs.31,000/- each from the defendant without any complaint/objection in the first week of September, 2017. The legal notice dated 26.06.2018 sent by the counsel Sh. Deepak Kohli on the instruction of the plaintiff to the defendant and the same is exhibited as Ex.PW1/B.
19. Ex.DW1/1 shows an amount of Rs.3,60,400/- inclusive of security amount of Rs.62,000/- and an amount of Rs.72,000/- which was admittedly paid by the defendant in September, 2017. On the other hand, notice dated 26.06.2018 Ex.PW1/B shows outstanding arrear of Rs.2,36,165/- exclusive of security amount of Rs.62,000/- and payment of Rs.72,000/- made by the defendant in the month of September, 2017. Though, Ex.PW1/B proved on behalf of the plaintiff, but in her cross-examination, she deposed regarding sending of legal notice Ex.DW1/1. The calculation of arrear of rent in Ex.DW1/1 is different from what plaintiff is claiming in her petition as well as in Ex.PW1/B. Moreover, said legal notice Ex.DW1/1 was filed and proved on CS No.950/18 page no.8/12 behalf of defendant and admitted by the plaintiff. As far as document mark-A is concerned, same is the copy of handwritten calculation of arrears of rent, so, same is inadmissible in evidence. Plaintiff in his plaint, evidence by way of affidavit and in cross-examination stated that total due amount is of Rs.2,36,000/- till December, 2017. Thus, irrespective of legal notices and Mark-A, plaintiff is able to prove that a sum of Rs.2,36,000/- was due towards defendant till December, 2017. So, burden is shifted upon the defendant under Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act to show that he has paid the arrears of rent to the plaintiff.
20. It is not in dispute that the defendant vacated the suit property in the month of December, 2017. Cross-examination of the defendant/DW1 got deferred on 25.01.2023 for bringing the account statement showing payments made to the plaintiff. However, on the NDOH, defendant failed to produce bank statement. Thereafter, defendant gave evasive reply in his cross-examination. Defendant deposed that he does not remember when he vacating the suit property. He deposed that he had paid the last paid amount before vacated the tenanted property. He further deposed that he paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the plaintiff at the time of vacating the tenanted property. He further stated that he has paid approximately Rs.60,000/- through cheque and remaining through cash. Though, he had not taken any receiving of the payment which he paid through cash. He further deposed that he cannot produce any document to show that he had paid rent to the plaintiff between November, 2016 to September, 2017. CS No.950/18 page no.9/12 Though, he voluntarily stated that during the said period, plaintiff used to collect the rent through cash.
21. Thus, bare perusal of the cross-examination of DW1 shows that he could have easily produced his statement of account to show that he has paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- at the time of vacating the suit property. It is also not believable that defendant has not obtained any receiving of the payment at the time of vacation of the suit property. In fact, plaintiff in his plaint as well as in evidence by way of affidavit specifically contended that defendant vacated the premises without giving any intimation to the plaintiff and handed over the keys of the said premise to the plaintiff's servant. Thus, it is apparent that there was no occasion for the defendant to make the alleged payment of Rs.1,25,000/- to the plaintiff as defendant vacated the suit property without intimating the plaintiff.
22. Thus, I am of the considered view that contradictions in the alleged notices Ex.PW1/B and Ex.DW1/1 are not sufficient to discard the positive testimony of the plaintiff regarding arrears of rent of Rs.2,36,000/-.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Mahesh Duttatray Tirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra", 2009 (11) SCC 141 observed that "one of the cardinal principle of civil law is that in civil cases, burden of proof is that of balance of probability and not that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Minor inconsistencies in evidence are not relevant in civil cases in considering the question of discharge of this burden."
CS No.950/18 page no.10/12
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Rameshwar Dass Vs. Hakim Javed" 2012 (187) DLT 73 observed that "a civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities is arrived at after weighing the respective evidence which is led by both the parties."
23. Thus, minor contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and legal notices Ex.PW1/B and Ex.DW1/1 regarding exact calculation of arrears of rent can be ignored. Moreover, after weighing the entire evidence/material on record, I am satisfied that balance of probabilities lies in favour of the plaintiff regarding the arrears of rent of Rs.2,36,165/-.
24. So, in view of the settled law and the above stated discussion, I am satisfied that plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.2,36,165/-. Thus, in view of the above discussion, issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff. Issue no.2.
"If issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff, whether plaintiff is entitled to the interest @ 15% per annum as prayed for ?
25. As far as interest is concerned, there was no mention of payment of interest on the arrears of rent in the rent agreement Ex.PW1/A. Plaintiff/PW1 proved the legal notice Ex.PW1/B in her examination in chief. However, in her cross-examination, she denied having sending any legal notice except legal notice dated 30.01.2018. The legal notice dated 30.01.2018 Ex.DW1/1 does not show the correct calculation of arrears of rent and moreover, the same does not CS No.950/18 page no.11/12 demand the interest on the arrears of rent. Thus, these legal notices cannot be relied upon for the purpose of granting interest to the plaintiff on the arrears of rent. However, court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice shall meet by awarding simple interest at the rate 6% per annum to the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the amount. Thus, issue no.2 is decided accordingly.
26 In view of the above findings of this court, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs.2,36,165/- along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 27.09.2018 till the realization of the amount. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
MANOJ
Announced in the Court MANOJ KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
today, the 18th of May, 2023 (MANOJ KUMAR)
2023.05.18
16:31:11
+0530
SCJ-cum-RC, East/KKD
CS No.950/18 page no.12/12