Delhi District Court
Sachin Arora vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Ltd. And Anr on 27 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD,
DISTRICT JUDGE- 01 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
CS No. 615/2020
CNR No. DLCT-01 007381 2020
1. Mr Sachin Arora
2. Mr Gaurav arora
Both Sons of:
Sh Darshan Kumar Arora
Both residents of:
BP-104, First Floor,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088. ....PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited
Through its directors/ managing directors
Having its registered office at:
P-10, New Cit Road, Kolkata-700073
West Bengal
Also At:
1563, Ground Floor with parchhatti
Church Road, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006
2. TCI Express Limited
Through its directors/ managing directors
At : 1563, Ground Floor with parchhatti
Church Road, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006. ....DEFENDANTS
CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 1 of 18
Date of institution of the suit : 28.10.2020
Date of Reserving Judgment : 27.04.2024
Date of Judgment : 27.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking possession, damages/mesne profits and for permanent injunction as well as interest @ 15% on the arrears of rent. The case of the plaintiffs, as contained in the amended plaint, in nutshell is as follows:-
i. That the plaintiffs have purchased the property bearing no 1563 and 1549, back portion having ad-measuring area 148.55 square meters situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 by virtue of a registered sale deed dt 26.11.2019 from the erstwhile owner Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust through its authorized signatory and representative Swami Vedanand, Chela Swami Govinda Nand Ji Maharaj (duly authorized vide resolution dt 01.06.2019).
ii. That the defendant no 1 being a tenant by erstwhile owner of the property i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust vide written rent agreement dt May 2017 at a monthly rent of Rs 15,000/- and the tenancy was created for a limited period from 01.04.2017 till 31.03.2020. The defendant no 1 without the consent of previous owner sub-letted the part of the tenanted premises to the defendant no 2 i.e. TCI Express Limited.
iii. That the defendant no 1 is occupying the western portion of the said property bearing no 1563, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi -06 having admeasuring area 59'x12'x8" equivalent to CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 2 of 18 69.41 sq.mtrs as well as the area under the occupation of the defendant no 2 over and above the ground portion ad-measuring 12'8"x 43' equivalent to 50.59 sq.mtrs forming part of property bearing no 1563, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi -06. iv. That the defendant no 1 has sub letted the portion admeasuring area 12'8"x43' (50.59 sq mtrs) to the defendant no 2 without written consent either from the said trust/earlier owner as well as plaintiff.
v. That the plaintiffs have already intimated the defendant no 1 with regard to the execution of the said sale deed favouring to the plaintiffs vide written letter dt 26.11.2019 sent by way of speed post on 02.12.2019.
vi. That inspite the said knowledge, the defendant no 1 has not come forward to rectify its mistake of sub-letting the portion of the suit property to the defendant no 2. However after the receipt of the said letter dt 26.11.2019 when the defendant no 1 did not respond, a legal demand notice dt 04.03.2020 was sent to the defendant no 1 at its Calcutta address as well as the tenanted premises under registered post as well as speed post.
vii. That by virtue of the legal notice dt 04.03.2020, the tenancy of the defendant no 1 qua the suit property was terminated. viii. That after receipt of said notice, the defendant no 1 sent two cheques of Rs 30,000/- each in the name of both the plaintiffs thereby admitting them to be its landlord/owner.
ix. That in the last week of September 2020, the plaintiffs came to know about visit of property dealers to the suit property for the purpose of creating third party right/interest in the suit property.
CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 3 of 18 x. On the basis of the aforesaid, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs.
2. On the basis of the above, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking following prayers:
(a) pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to vacate and handover the actual peaceful physical and vacant possession of the suit property i.e. portion admeasuring area 59'x12'x8" equivalent to 69.41 sq.mtrs and parchhatti situated in the entire area i.e. 120.00 sq.mtrs as well as area over and above the ground portion ad-measuring 12'8"x43' equivalent to 50.59 sq.mtrs forming part of property bearing no 1563, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi -1100006 (more specifically shown in Red colour in the site plan filed with the plaint);
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby restraining them, their associates, directors, successors, representative, nominees, assigns, attorneys etc from sub-letting, assigning, parting with possession, selling, alienating and from creating any kind of third party interest in the suit property i.e. portion admeasuring area 59'x12'x8" equivalent to 69.41 sq.mtrs and parchhatti situated in the entire area i.e. 120.00 sq.mtrs as well as area over and above the ground portion ad-measuring 12'8"x43' equivalent to 50.59 sq.mtrs forming part of property bearing no 1563, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi -1100006 (more specifically shown in Red colour in the site plan filed with the plaint);
(b) pass a decree of damages/mesne profits to the tune of Rs 1,05,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Only) @ Rs 15,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2020 till 31.10.2020 alongwith future damages/ mesne profits CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 4 of 18 w.e.f. 01.11.2020 at the same rate till actual handing over the physical possession of the suit property by the defendants to the plaintiffs;
(b) pass a decree of recovery of interest of Rs 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) @ 15% per annum on the arrears of rent of Rs 60,000/- as well as legal notice charges of Rs 11,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
(c) award the cost of the present suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants; and
(d) pass any other order of relief which this Hon'ble court may deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants.
3. On 16.04.2022, Ld Counsel for plaintiff no 1 has accepted the rent tendered by the defendant by way of demand draft No 644864 dt 17.02.2022 for a sum of Rs 2,07,000/-.
4. On the same day i.e. 16.04.2022, plaintiff no 2 has also accepted the rent tendered by the defendant by way of demand draft No 644863 dt 17.02.2022 for a sum of Rs 2,07,000/-.
SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS AND WRITTEN STATEMENT
5. The defendants were served with the summons of the suit but the defendant no. 2 on 26.11.2020 was also served and thereafter the defendant no. 2 was also served with the notice of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (moved by the plaintiff to amend the plaint) on 30.03.2021. However none has appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2 therefore defendant no. 2 was proceeded Ex-Parte vide order dated 19.09.2022. Thereafter defendant no. 2 had filed Vakalatnama only on 11.09.2023 and has neither filed its WS and has not contested the suit.
6. The defendant no 1 was served with the summons of the suit and the CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 5 of 18 defendant no 1 filed its written statement challenging the suit of the plaintiff inter-alia on the following grounds:-
(a) That the defendant no 1 entered into an rent agreement dated May 2017 with the original owner of the suit property namely Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust and has always abided by the terms and conditions of the said rent agreement.
(b) That the transfer of property bearing no 1563 and 1549 back portion having admeasuring area 148.55 sq mtrs situated at Church Road Kashmere Gate Delhi-110006 by virtue of sale deed dt 26.11.2019 is an illegal transfer as the same has been done by private negotiation which is not permissible in law with regard to the properties owned by a charitable trust. Therefore the said transfer is void ab initio and the sale deed dated 26.11.2019 is non est in law and does not convey any legal right to the plaintiffs.
(c) Defendant no. 1 admitted the fact that the erstwhile owner of the property bearing no. 1563 and 1549 back portion having admeasuring area 148.55 sq mtrs situated at Church Road Kashmere Gate Delhi-
110006 was owned by Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust who had sold the same to the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 26.11.2019.
(d) The defendant no. 1 denied the fact in unequivocal terms that defendant no. 1 has not sub-letted any part of the tenanted premises to defendant no. 2 or to anybody else and are in possession of the same as per the terms and conditions of the rent agreement dated May-2017.
(e) Defendant no. 1 also admitted the fact that the original owner namely Yogehswar Gangeshwar Charitable Trust intimated the fact of having it executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.
(f) Defendant no. 1 on the aspect of the termination of the tenancy CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 6 of 18 effected vide notice dated 04.03.2020 while not disputing the fact of having received the notice dated 04.03.2020 has stated that the plaintiffs have no right to terminate the tenancy of defendant no. 1 as the same can be done by the owners having valid title of the suit property whereas the title of the plaintiffs is tainted and accordingly submitted that the defendant no. 1 was not liable to handover the vacant, peaceful possession of the suit property who also denied the liability towards damages/mesne profits @ of Rs. 15,000/- per month w.e.f 01.04.2020 in actual handing over of the possession.
REPLICATION
7. The plaintiff filed his replication to the written statement filed by the defendant no 1 by denying the allegations leveled by the defendant no 1 and reiterating the contents of the plaint.
ISSUES
8. This Court, vide order dated 19.09.2022, had framed the following issues for adjudication:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the suit property as per prayer Clause (a)? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs. 17,250/- per month with effect from 01.04.2022 till the handing over of the possession? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any, as prayed for? OPP CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 7 of 18
5. Relief, if any?
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
9. The plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A & B. The plaintiff has relied upon various documents in the following manner:-
S. No. Exhibits Documents
1 Ex PW 1/1 Site plan
2 Ex PW 1/ 2 Copy of sale deed dt 26.11.2019
(OSR)
3 Ex PW 1/ 3 Copy of resolution dt 01.06.2019.
(OSR) (colly)
4 Ex PW 1/ 4 Rent agreement dt May 2017.
(OSR)
5 Ex PW 1/ 5 Copy of letter dt 26.11.2019.
6 Ex PW 1/6 Office copy of legal notice dt 04.03.2020.
7 Ex PW 1/7 4 postal receipts.
(colly)
8 Mark B Tracking report
9 Ex PW 1/9 & Copies of Aadhar card of Sachin Arora
Ex PW 1/10
and plaintiff no 2.
(OSR)
10 Mark A Visiting card of Sh Vinod Kumar branch
head of defendant no 2.
10. Thereafter PE was closed on 08.11.2023.
11. The defendant, in order to prove its case, has examined its AR Sh Sudip Mandal as DW-1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A bearing her signatures at point A & B. The DW-1 relied CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 8 of 18 upon the following documents:
S.No Exhibits Documents
1 Ex. DW1/1 Original Board Resolution dated
12.11.2020.
2 Ex. DW1/2 Copy of the DDs dated 17.02.2022 of
DD bearing no. 644863.
3 Ex. DW1/3 Copy of the DDs dated 17.02.2022 of
DD bearing no. 644864.
4 Ex. DW1/4 Copy of the DD dated 17.02.2022
bearing no. 209299.
5 Ex. DW1/5 Copy of the DD dated 17.02.2022
bearing no. 209300.
12. The DW-1 was duly cross-examined and DE was closed on 20.02.2024.
ANALYSYS AND FINDINGS
13. Arguments Heard. Record Perused.
14. In view of the arguments advanced and submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the issues as under:
Issue No 1.and Issue no. 2 are taken together since they involve common appreciation.
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the suit property as per prayer Clause (a)? OPP and Issue no. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
15. The Plaintiff by the testimony of PW-1 duly proved the registered sale deed dt 26.11.2019 (Ex PW1/ 2) from its erstwhile owner i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust and also the Rent CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 9 of 18 agreement dated May 2017 between the erstwhile owner i.e Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust and defendant no 1 vide (Ex PW1/4 ) whereby the property i.e. all that building lying and situated at 1563 situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-06 was demised to Defendant No 1 on a monthly rent of Rs 15,000/- for a period of 3 years i.e. 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2020. The Plaintiff has also duly proved the letter dt 26.11.2019 sent on 02.12.2019 ( Ex PW 1/5) whereby the erstwhile owner of the suit property had informed the factum of transfer of the ownership rights in favour of the Plaintiffs. PW-1 also proved the legal notice dt 04.03.2020 ( EX PW1/6) which was issued to defendant no 1 at its Calcutta address as well as at the address of the tenanted premises through registered post as well as by speed post demanding the arrears of rent/ user charges and also the vacant possession of the tenanted premises i.e. the ground portion as well as the portion which as per the Plaintiff is under the occupation and possession of defendant no 2 who as per the plaintiff is a sub-Lettee under defendant no 1, clearly intimating Defendant No 1 that they do not want to further extend the period of the lease. PW-1 further deposed that since defendant no 1 failed to hand over the vacate physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs after the termination of the tenancy hence defendant no 1 is liable to pay interest on the arrears of rent and also liable to pay damages @ Rs 15,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2020 till the actual date of handing over the possession. The PW- 1 was duly cross-examined by Ld Counsel for defendant no 1 who clearly stated that the intimation with respect to having purchase the suit property by the plaintiff was given to Sh Dinesh Kumar the CEO of the defendant by the plaintiffs but the said intimation was also provided CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 10 of 18 to defendant no 1 by its erstwhile owner vide letter dt 26.11.2019 which was sent through speed post to the registered office at Calcutta. PW-1 also admitted to have received the use and occupation charges after the expiry of the lease i.e 30.03.2020 till 31.03.2022 during the course of the proceedings of the suit together with 15% increase thereupon as per the expired lease deed.
16. Although a stand has been taken by the Defendant No 1 in the written statement that an illegal transfer has been made by the erstwhile owner/ landlord of the suit property in as much as executing the sale deed dated 26.11.2019 and that the said transfer is void however in terms of the provisions of section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and in view of the settled legal position of law the tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord.
17. In the case titled as Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagan Nath & Ors 1976 AIR 2335, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed :-
"The relationship between the parties being that of landlord and tenant,only the landlord could terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord Under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The tenant can not deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between the landlord and tenant question of title to the leased property is irrelevant."
18. Furthermore, in the case titled as Subhash Jain vs. Ravi Sehgal in RC Rev. No. 292/2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under :
"The other objection of the petitioner is also without any force that the sale deed dated 29th March, 1993 is a sham document. The petitioner cannot object the history of ownership of the suit property in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord as he has not a contender to the CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 11 of 18 suit property."
19. In the case of Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and Shanti Sharma vs. Ved Prabha, 1987 RLR 526 SC, wherein it was held that it is not the concern of the tenant as to how the landlord acquired the property.
20. In the case of Bharat Bhushan Vij vs. Arti Techchandani, 2008 (153) DLT 247 in paras 4 and 5 it was held as under :
"4. The concept of ownership in a landlord- tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner."
21. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Defendant No 1 has no right to dispute the title or ownership of the landlords/ petitioners. Defendant No 1 clearly in the written state- ment as well as in the testimony of DW1clearly admitted the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust and also the fact that the transfer of the ownership in favour of the Plaintiffs was duly intimated to Defendant No 1 by the erst- while owner. Accordingly in the given facts, the Plaintiffs stepped into CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 12 of 18 the shoes of the erstwhile owner of the suit property by virtue of the reg- istered sale deed in terms of the provisions of section of 109 of the trans- fer of property act which is reproduced hereinbelow for a ready reference as follows:
" 109. Rights of lessor's transferee.--
If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him:
Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.
The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased.
22. From the testimony of PW-1 and the documents proved by the said witness thus it is proved that the plaintiffs became the owner of the property i.e. portion on ground floor with parchatti, without roof rights, built on area admeasuring 148.55 sq mts with proportionate share in the land thereunder which is forming part of property bearing no. 1563 and part of property no. 1549-1562 situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-06 by virtue of the registered sale deed i.e EX PW 1/2 . The plaintiff has also proved the fact that property bearing no. 1563 situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-06 was leased to defendant no 1 vide Ex PW 1/4 by its erstwhile owner. It is also proved that vide Ex PW 1/5 due intimation about the factum of the transfer of the ownership CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 13 of 18 from its erstwhile owner was given to defendant no 1. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs in terms of the covenants of the Lease Deed ( EX PW 1/4) before the expiry of the lease deed in clear terms intimated Defendant no 1 that the Plaintiffs are not interested in extending the period of Lease after the expiry of its term i.e on 31.03.2020 and called upon the Defendant No 1 to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the Plaintiffs in terms of the notice of attornment having been provided to Defendant No 1 by the erstwhile owner of the suit property. Since despite the receipt of the legal notice dt 04.03.2020 (Ex PW 1/6) despite the determination of the lease, the possession was not handed over, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.
23. PW-1 by proving the Rent Agreement Ex PW 1/4 and also the legal notice dt 04.03.2020 (Ex PW 1/6) also proved the fact that the tenancy subsisting in favour of PW-1 was to expire of 31.03.2020 and a clear intention of not renewing the same was intimated by the Plaintiffs before the expiry of the term of the lease and possession of the tenanted premises was claimed by the Plaintiffs. Thus the lease as granted to Defendant No 1 expired on 31.03.2020 which was not renewed for any further term by the act of the plaintiffs who had stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and having expressed their clear intention of not renewing the lease after its term.
Clause 1.2 of the rent agreement Ex PW 1/4 is reproduced for a ready reference as follows:
The monthly salary shall be renewed automatically after completion of 3 years and rent will be increased with 15% from previous rent and fresh agreement will be executed with mutual consent of both parties.
24. Although there is a term in the lease deed (Ex PW 1/4) i.e. clause 1.2 which provides that the monthly tenancy shall be renewed automatically CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 14 of 18 after completion of 3 years with 15% increase in the previous rent and a fresh agreement will be executed with the mutual consent between both the parties. A bare perusal of the said clause goes to show that the renewal of the tenancy after the expiry of the initial term for a period of 3 years (31.03.2020) was to be subject to a 15% increase in the rent and was also subject to the execution of a fresh agreement with the mutual consent of both the parties. Since prior to the date of expiry of the initial period of lease which was effective with effect from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2020, vide legal notice dt 04.03.2020 ( Ex PW 1/6) the plaintiffs had expressed their clear intention in not renewing the lease has the effect of determination of the lease as granted to defendant no 1 by virtue of efflux of time and the lease in the absence of mutuality on the part of the Plaintiffs in renewing the same stood determined. Thus the lease as granted to Defendant No 1 stood determined and was not renewed for any other period. PW-1 in his testimony although has stated that portion of the demised property had been sub-letted by defendant no. 1 however the said fact could not be proved during the trial and defendant no. 1 all throughout maintained the stand that defendant no. 1 had not sub-letted any portion of the demised premises and which admission could not be displaced by the plaintiffs who besides placing on record the visiting card i.e. Mark A has not placed on record any other material including photographs etc. to show that defendant no. 1 sub-letted any portion of the demised premises in favour of defendant no. 2. Accordingly issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no 1 and the plaintiff is held entitled to the possession of the demised premises i.e. "All that building lying and situated at 1563, situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-06" as per the site plan (Ex PW1/1) CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 15 of 18 attached and marked in red colour and as demised under the rent agreement dated May 2017. Since the possession of the tenanted premises despite the determination and termination of the rent agreement dated May-2017 executed in favour of defendant no. 1 has not been handed over to the plaintiffs who have stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction and the defendants, their associates, directors, representatives, assignees etc. are restrained from sub-letting, assigning, alienating, selling or from creating third party rights and interests in the suit property i.e. portion admeasuring area 59'x12'x8 equivalent to 69.41 sq mts and Parchhatti situated in the entire area i.e. 120.00 sq mts as well as area over and above the ground portion admeasuring 12'843' equivalent to 50.59 sq mts forming part of property bearing no. 1563, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 and as shown in the red colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. Hence accordingly, issue no. 2 is hereby decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no. 1.
25. Issue no. 3 and Issue no. 4 are taken together since they involve common appreciation of evidence and facts.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs. 17,250/- per month with effect from 01.04.2022 till the handing over of the possession? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if any, as prayed for? OPP
26. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions from the father of the plaintiff present in court submits that he is not pressing his claim towards interest on the arrears of use and occupation charges as CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 16 of 18 sought by him in Prayerb(ii) of the amended plaint. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 submits that he has paid the use and occupation charges w.e.f the period 01.04.2020 till date and that Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2, on instructions from defendant no. 2 submits that neither the defendant no. 2 nor any of the associate or related company/subsidiary as well as holding company is in possession of any of the portion of the suit property. The statement made by counsel for defendant no. 2 is taken on record. In view of the statement made by the counsel on instructions, no finding qua the present issues is required to be given.
RELIEF
27. The plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs as follows :-
(i) The plaintiff is held entitled to the possession of the demised premises i.e. "All that building lying and situated at 1563, situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-06" as per the site plan (Ex PW1/1) attached and marked in red colour and as demised under the rent agreement dated May 2017.
(ii) The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction and the defendants, their associates, directors, representatives, assignees etc. are restrained from sub-letting, assigning, alienating, selling or from creating third party rights and interests in the suit property i.e. portion admeasuring area 59'x12'x8 equivalent to 69.41 sq mts and Parchhatti situated in the entire area i.e. 120.00 sq mts as well as area over and above the ground portion admeasuring 12'843' equivalent to 50.59 sq mts forming part of property bearing no. 1563, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
28. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit.
CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 17 of 18
29. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
30. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (Sachin Sood)
on 27the April, 2024 DJ-01 (Central)
THC, Delhi.
(The judgment contains 18 pages)
CS No 615/2020 Sachin Arora Vs The Assam Bengal Carrier Limited Page No 18 of 18