Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sain Dass vs . Naresh Garg on 3 December, 2012

                                                : 1 :

   IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE  :  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT 
       JUDGE­01  :  SOUTH DISTRICT  :  SAKET COURTS  :  NEW DELHI


Suit No. 764/11

In the matter of  :


Sain Dass Vs.  Naresh Garg


03.12.2012

ORDER  :

Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application of the defendant u/o 39 Rule 10 CPC whereby he has prayed for depositing the admitted amount of rent of suit property w.e.f. 01.06.2011 at the rate of Rs.500/­ per month exclusive of electricity and water charges or for directing the plaintiff to accept the same.

The plaintiff in his reply has submitted that monthly rent of the suit property is Rs.8,000/­ per month and accordingly, the defendant may be asked to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.8,000/­ month. However, u/o 39 Rule 10 CPC, the court can only direct the defendant to pay the admitted amount which is Rs.500/­ per month and in view of admission of defendant, defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.06.2011 @ Rs.500/­ per month exclusive of electricity and water charges within 15 days from today and to continue to pay the same before 7th of every month. However, allowing of the application does not Contd....P..1 of 2 : 2 : mean that rent of the suit property has been accepted to be Rs.500/­ per month and plaintiff is directed to accept the admitted amount of Rs.500/­ per month without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the present suit. The present application u/o 39 Rule 10 CPC is accordingly disposed off, as allowed. Dictated and announced in the open court on 03.12.2012 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) ADJ­I(South) Saket Courts 03.12.2012 Contd....P..2 of 2 : 3 : IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE­01 : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI Suit No. 764/11 In the matter of :

Sain Dass Vs. Naresh Garg 03.12.2012 ORDER :
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application of the defendant filed u/o 11 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages. While the plaintiff has submitted that the rent of the suit property is Rs.8,000/­ per month, the defendant in its WS has submitted that rent of the suit premises is Rs.500/­ per month w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Through the present application, the defendant has raised two interrogatories which are as follows :
1 When exactly the tenanted shop in question was let out to the defendant and by whom and on what terms and conditions? 2 What initial rate of rent was fixed between the defendant and Contd....P..3 of 2 : 4 : the erstwhile landlord of the tenanted shop in question at the time of inception of tenancy?

The plaintiff has filed the detailed reply and has submitted that none of the two interrogatories is relevant for deciding the present matter. However, plaintiff has replied to interrogatory No.1 partly as "Shop in question was let out by late Smt. Lajwanti, mother of plaintiff" and has stated that the tenancy was oral and terms and conditions were not reduced into writing and as such plaintiff is not aware of the oral terms and conditions. He has also submitted that he does not know the exact date, month and year of letting out the suit premises and rate of rent at which the same were let. In reply to second interrogatory, plaintiff has submitted that he is not aware of the initial rate of rent fixed between the defendant and erstwhile land lady of the tenanted shop at the time of inception of tenancy as the matter is very old.

In my considered opinion, the plaintiff has substantially replied to the interrogatories raised by the defendant and since both the plaintiff and defendant have admitted that suit property was let out by the mother of the plaintiff and the tenancy is very old, the exact date of letting out the suit property is not relevant for adjudicating the present matter. Further, a Contd....P..4 of 2 : 5 : perusal of the WS reveals that if defendant has not made any mention of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreed between him and the mother of the plaintiff. Similarly, the amount of rent at the inception of tenancy is not relevant for adjudicating the claim of the plaintiff and accordingly in my considered opinion, the said portion of the interrogatory is not required to be answered and is rejected under proviso of Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. The application is accordingly disposed off. Dictated and announced in the open court on 03.12.2012 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) ADJ­I(South) Saket Courts 03.12.2012 Contd....P..5 of 2