Delhi District Court
Sh. Shiv Nath Prasad vs Sh. Shyam Nath Prasad on 22 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01 (NORTH-EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 113/11
Date of Institution of Appeal : 24.04.2010
Date on which Reserved for Order : 04.08.2010
Date of Judgment/Order : 22.09.2011
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0114552010
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Shiv Nath Prasad,
S/o Sh. Bhagya Narayan Prasad,
R/o B-107, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi-110096.
.......Appellant.
Versus
Sh. Shyam Nath Prasad,
S/o Sh. Bhagya Narayan Prasad,
R/o B-107, First Floor,
New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi-110096.
.......Respondent.
Judgment:
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 4.3.10 passed by the Ld. Trial Court by which suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction and damages/mesne profits was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit before the ld. Trial court contending that the plaintiff was the owner of RCA No.113/11 Page No. 1 of 21 property measuring 50 sq. yards out of Khasra no.393/264 bearing no.B-107 (old no.203), New Ashok Nagar Delhi-96 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property by way of GPA dated 16.7.1981 and an agreement to sell of the same date from its previous owner from his own funds on 16.7.1981. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff who was engaged in shoe making constructed on the land purchased by him from his own funds. Electricity and water connection in the suit premises were sanctioned in the name of the plaintiff.
3. It is averred that in the year 2003 plaintiff allowed the defendant (his younger brother) to reside in the suit property as licensee and that it was agreed between them that the defendant would pay Rs.200/- for meeting the electricity expenses and Rs.100/- for water expenses per month to the plaintiff. It is averred that in March 2005 when the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay water charges, defendant refused to contribute and started fighting with the plaintiff and claimed that he was the co-owner of the suit property alleging that he spent money towards acquisition of the suit property and construction thereof. Plaintiff immediately asked the defendant to vacate the suit property but the defendant refused to do so. Defendant issued a notice dated 1.8.05 to the plaintiff demanding one fourth share in the suit property which was replied to by the plaintiff on 4.8.05 by which plaintiff also terminated license of defendant to reside RCA No.113/11 Page No. 2 of 21 in the suit premises. It is averred that the defendant lodged a false complaint in Police Station Ashok Nagar on 5.8.05 and also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff in the court of Ld. Civil Judge, KKD Courts. It is averred that despite revocation of license, defendant continued to reside in the suit premises and the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.
4. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant who filed his written statement claiming that the suit property was purchased from funds contributed by the defendant as well as father of plaintiff and defendant. It is averred that the parties were residing as a joint family in their native village and it was mutually agreed between them that the defendant would be given the first floor in the suit premises and that after making construction on the first floor defendant became the absolute owner thereof. It is averred that the defendant was residing in the suit premises since 1989 and after receiving his share in October 2003 defendant shifted to the first floor of the suit property.
5. On the pleadings of the parties ld. Trial court by order dated 3.1.06 framed the following issues:
1.Whether the plaintiff has not come with the clean hands before the Hon. Court?
OPD
2.Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD RCA No.113/11 Page No. 3 of 21
3.Whether the defendant is a licensee under the plaintiff in the suit premises? OPP
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP
5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/mesne profits, if so, at what rate? OPP
6.Relief.
6. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and defendant examined himself as DW1 and Sh. Bhagya Nath Prasad, father of the parties as DW2. After considering the material on record, ld. Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the owner of the suit property or that the defendant was the licensee of the same.
7. Before this court ld. Counsel for appellant has argued that the plaintiff had duly proved his title to the suit property viz. the defendant. He argued that the plaintiff proved on record the GPA dated 16.7.1081 as EX.PW1/A, agreement to sell dated 16.7.1981 as Ex.PW1/B and his water bill in the premises in the name of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/C. It is argued that the plaintiff also placed on record the electricity bill, photocopy of which was marked as Mark A in which the name of the plaintiff is shown as the owner of the premises. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff/appellant argued that the respondent was inducted in the suit premises as the licensee in RCA No.113/11 Page No. 4 of 21 the year 2003 and had no right, title or interest in the same. When the respondent challenged the title of the plaintiff to the suit property plaintiff canceled the license of the defendant and asked him to vacate the same. Ld. Counsel for appellant argued that the ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that inter-se between the plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff had proved that he had a better title than the defendant and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to the relief as claimed in the suit. Ld. Counsel for appellant drew the attention of the court to cross examination of DW1 in which DW1 has categorically admitted that the documents of the suit property were in the name of the plaintiff and that defendant had no evidence to show that he had contributed funds for the construction of the suit property. 8 Ld. Counsel for appellant has also pointed out that DW2, father of the parties had stated that he had paid money for purchase of the suit plot but he did not know the name of the seller from whom suit property was purchased. Ld. Counsel for appellant also argued that PW1, plaintiff had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and was subject to cross examination by the counsel for defendant. However no question was put to PW1 in respect of any of his deposition contained in para 1 to 8 of the evidence by way of affidavit. Counsel for appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of V.N. Deosthali Vs. State through CBI reported in 2010 (1) JCC 466 and argued that where the witness deposed a particular fact and no suggestion to the contrary RCA No.113/11 Page No. 5 of 21 is given to him in cross examination, the party whom the deposition is made is deemed to have admitted the fact. Counsel for appellant lastly argued that the ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that even if the documents of both of the plaintiff were inadmissible, since the defendant has not been able to prove that he was the co-owner of the suit premises and had also admitted title of the plaintiff, plaintiff was entitled to decree as claimed.
9. Ld. Counsel for respondent on the other hand argued that parties are brothers and are living jointly in their native village. He argued that appellant / plaintiff was a daily wager and came to Delhi in the year 1981 and it cannot be believed that plaintiff could have paid for the suit property in the year 1981 itself. Counsel for respondent argued that Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B i.e. GPA and agreement to sell being unregistered document did not confer any title on the plaintiff. He further argued that the said documents do not contain any signatures of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not even present when the same were executed. He argued that the appellant was minor as on the date of execution of these documents since appellant was born in 1964 and the documents were executed in 1981. Ld. Counsel for respondent further argued that respondent/defendant had only admitted that the documents of title were in the name of the plaintiff but did not admit that the same were owned by the plaintiff.
10. Ld. Counsel for appellant/plaintiff in rejoinder argued that the defendant RCA No.113/11 Page No. 6 of 21 being a licensee could not challenge the title of the plaintiff who was as licenser as regards the defendant and relied on Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. He further argued that defendant had not placed on record any document of title to show that he was either allotted the first floor in the suit premises or that he was in possession of the suit premises since 1989 as alleged.
11. I have heard the ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record. My findings are as under:
Issue No.1 & 2:
12. Onus to prove issue no.1 and 2 were on the defendant. The same were framed on the contention of the defendant that plaintiff had approached the court with unclean hands and that the suit had not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. Said issues were decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. No appeal or cross objection in respect of the said findings have been filed by the defendant. The same therefore do not call for any interference.
Issue no.3 to 5:
13. Issue no.3 to 5 were decided together by the ld. Trial court. Onus to prove these issues were on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and produced on record the GPA dated 16.7.81 as Ex.PW1/A and agreement to sell dated 16.7.1981 as Ex.PW1/B. Plaintiff has produced water bill of the suit RCA No.113/11 Page No. 7 of 21 premises as Ex.PW1/C. This bill is for the period 4.2.05 to 26.2.05. Plaintiff has also produced electricity bill of the suit premises but since photocopy of the same was filed it was marked as Mark A. This is also for the month of July 2005. In his evidence by way of affidavit plaintiff deposed on the lines of his averments made in the plaint. Plaintiff has averred that he purchased the suit property by way of documents Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B on 16.7.1981 and constructed on the plot from his own funds. He has deposed that in the year 2003 he allowed his younger brother, defendant to live in the suit property. He deposed that up to February 2005 defendant has paid his share of the water and electricity expenses but thereafter claimed that he was co-owner of the property and refused to pay the same. Plaintiff asked defendant to vacate the suit premises which he failed to do so and the plaintiff filed the present suit. PW1 was cross examined by the counsel for defendant. In his cross examination plaintiff has stated that he was not present at the time of execution of Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. Suggestion has been given to this witness that the plot in question was purchased by father of the parties out of funds arranged by the father and the defendant. There is no suggestion given to this witness that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. There is also no suggestion given to this witness that the defendant was not inducted into the suit premises in the capacity of a licensee in the year 2003 as deposed.
14. Defendant examined himself as DW1. In his evidence by way of affidavit RCA No.113/11 Page No. 8 of 21 defendant has deposed that he used to give his earnings to the plaintiff and that construction of the suit property was completed by money contributed by all family members of the plaintiff and defendant in 1991. He has further deposed that there was an agreement in the village between parties that defendant would be given first floor in the suit premises as and when first floor would be constructed. He has deposed that he is residing in the first floor of the suit premises in the capacity of owner and landlord since October 2003. He has deposed that prior to that he was residing on the ground floor of the suit property with the plaintiff and other family members. DW1 was cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff. He has stated that he came to the suit property in 1989 at which time it was the vacant plot and all together had raised one room in October 1989 by their joint funds. He has admitted that he has no documentary evidence to show that he had contributed funds for construction of the suit property. At the same time he has denied the suggestion that he had not contributed funds for construction of the suit property. He has admitted that suit property was purchased on 16.7.1981 and that the documents of the suit property were in the name of the plaintiff. He has stated that he was not present at the time of purchase of the suit property but money for the same was given by his father in his presence. He has admitted that no agreement or settlement between the plaintiff and defendant was reduced in writing. He has admitted that he had not invested money in purchase of the suit property. In his RCA No.113/11 Page No. 9 of 21 further cross examination on 16.3.09 PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had not raised any construction in the suit property.
15. Defendant examined father of the parties as DW2. In his evidence by way of affidavit DW2 has stated that he gave money to the plaintiff for purchasing the suit property and that all his 3 sons had equal share in the suit property. In his cross examination DW2 had stated that he did not know the name of the seller from whom the suit property was purchased. He also did not know the name of the witnesses in whose presence documents were executed. He denied the suggestion that he did not pay money for purchase of the suit property but at the same time stated that he did not know the amount spent for purchasing the suit property. The ld. Trial court on the basis of this evidence has held that the documents of title relied upon by the plaintiff i.e. Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B do not confer a complete legal title on the plaintiff since no other documents such as possession letter or receipt were placed on record to prove the complete transaction of sale. Ld. Trial court further observed that since these documents were executed in 1981 and since the plaintiff was born in 1964, being minor the same did not confer any title on him. Ld. Trial court has further observed that Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B do not bear the signatures of the plaintiff and hence no findings of ownership in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of these documents can be returned.
RCA No.113/11 Page No. 10 of 21
16. In view of these findings the ld. Trial court held that since plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the property and also that the defendant was only licensee plaintiff was not entitled to relief as claimed in the plaint.
17. In the case of Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Haradeb Banerjee, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 572 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:-
"8. "Ownership denotes the relation between a person and an object forming the subject matter of his ownership. It consists in a complex of rights, all of which are rights in rem, being good against all the world and not merely against specific persons." (Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edn., Ch. 8, p. 246 et seq). There are various rights or incidents of ownership all of which need not necessarily be present in every case. They may include a right to possess, use and enjoy the thing owned; and a right to consume, destroy or alienate it. Such a right may be indeterminate in duration and residuary in character. A person has a right to possess the thing which he owns, even when he is not in possession, but only retains a reversionary interest, i.e. a right to repossess the thing on the termination of a certain period or on the happening of a certain event.
9. All that a plaintiff needs to prove is that he has a better title than the defendant. He has no burden to show that he has the best of all possible titles. His ownership is good against all the world except the true owner. The rights of an owner are seldom absolute, and often are in many respects controlled and regulated by statute. The question, however, is whether he has a superior right or interest vis-a-vis the person challenging it."RCA No.113/11 Page No. 11 of 21
18. Further in the case Subramanya Swamy Temple, Ratnagiri v. V. Kanna Gounder (Dead) By Lrs., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 306 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:-
"13. The law operating in this connection having been noticed by this Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, we need not enter into a deeper probe. Therein it was held: (SCC p. 775, paras 8-9) "8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted RCA No.113/11 Page No. 12 of 21 trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner.
9. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions."
19 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases has been pleased to hold that a plaintiff is required to prove his title in respect of suit property against the defendant only. In case both parties are not having any clear evidence of title to the suit property, court is to ascertain as to which party has better title.
20. In the present case the defendant in his cross examination has admitted that the suit property was purchased on 16.7.1081 and the documents of title are in the name of the plaintiff. Defendant although had claimed in his defence that the suit plot was purchased out of the funds contributed by himself and his father and he had contributed towards the cost of construction of the suit property, in his cross examination he has stated that he had no documentary evidence to show RCA No.113/11 Page No. 13 of 21 that he had contributed funds for the construction of the suit property. He has further stated that he had not invested any money in purchase of the suit property. Defendant had stated that an agreement was reached in village that defendant would be entitled to first floor of the suit property. In his cross examination he has stated that no agreement or settlement was reduced into writing between the parties. Title of the plaintiff in the suit property from the date of purchase i.e. 16.7.1981 has not been denied. In his cross examination defendant has stated that he started working in the year 1989 and he came to the suit property in the year 1989. Although he has stated that at that time plot was vacant and that they had all together raised one room in 1989 from their joint funds he had again stated that he did not invest money and purchase of suit property and that he had no documentary evidence to show that he contributed funds for construction of the suit property. The testimony of DW1 is contradictory and inconsistent.
21. In the case of V.N. Deosthali Vs. State through CBI (supra) relied upon by the plaintiff Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to hold that when the witness deposes a particular fact and no suggestion to the contrary is given to him in cross examination the party against whom the deposition is made is deemed to have admitted that fact. In his evidence by way of affidavit, PW1 plaintiff had clearly stated that defendant was inducted as a licensee in the suit property in the year 2003 only. In cross examination of PW1 no suggestion has been given that the RCA No.113/11 Page No. 14 of 21 said deposition was incorrect or that the defendant was in occupation of the suit premises as a licensee. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V.N. Deosthali Vs. State through CBI (supra) the same would amount to an admission on the part of the defendant that he was inducted in the suit property in the year 2003 as licensee.
22. There is nothing in the evidence of DW2, father of the parties which could come to the aid of the defendant. DW2 in his examination in chief by way of affidavit has only stated that he gave money to the plaintiff for purchasing the suit plot. However in his cross examination he has stated that he did not know the name of the seller from whom the plot was purchased and that he also did not know the amount paid for purchase of the suit plot. Testimony of PW2 therefore in the opinion of this court is not reliable.
23. In the opinion of this court plaintiff has produced better evidence than the defendant and title of the plaintiff is better than that of the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the respondent had argued that PW1/A and PW1/B were not signed by the plaintiff and purchaser and hence the same were invalid. In the case of Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:-
"17. Section 10 of the Act provides that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent by the parties competent to contract, for a RCA No.113/11 Page No. 15 of 21 lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void under the provisions of the Contract Act. The proviso to Section 10 of the Act makes it clear that the section will not apply to contracts which are required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or any law relating to registration of documents. Our attention has not been drawn to any law applicable in Bihar at the relevant time, which requires an agreement of sale to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or to be registered. Therefore, even an oral agreement to sell is valid. If so, a written agreement signed by one of the parties, if it evidences such an oral agreement will also be valid.
18. In any agreement of sale, the terms are always negotiated and thereafter reduced in the form of an agreement of sale and signed by both parties or the vendor alone (unless it is by a series of offers and counter- offers by letters or other modes of recognised communication). In India, an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and delivered to the purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can be specifically enforced by the purchaser. There is, however, no practice of purchaser alone signing an agreement of sale."
24. In the above mentioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly been pleased to hold that an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone is also a valid contract. Hence submissions of the respondent that EX.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B were not signed by the purchaser/plaintiff has no merit. For the reasons recorded above findings of the ld. Trial court on issue no.3 and 4 cannot be RCA No.113/11 Page No. 16 of 21 sustained. Issue no.3 and 4 are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
25. As regards issue no.5 entitlement of the plaintiff towards the mesne profits, in para 8 of the evidence by way of affidavit plaintiff has deposed that plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month as license of the defendant was terminated. There is no cross examination of PW1 by the defendant on this aspect. Applying the law as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V.N. Deosthali Vs. State through CBI (supra) deposition of plaintiff regarding entitlement to damages at the rate of Rs.1500/- would deemed to be admitted by the defendant.
26. At the same time in the case of Union of India v. Banwari Lal & Sons (P) Ltd. reported in (2004) 5 SCC 304 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:-
"8. At the outset, we may point out that there are different methods of valuation, namely, income/profit method, cost of construction method, rent method and contractors' method. In the present case, the arbitrator has applied the income/profit method. The above two issues are interconnected, as the arbitrator has assessed damages on the assumption that after 10-3-1987, the occupation and possession of the property was wrongful and illegal and in the nature of trespass. Accordingly, he has assessed damages on the footing that the respondent was entitled to mesne profits. This assumption was wrong as the appellant was given time by this Court RCA No.113/11 Page No. 17 of 21 to remain in possession up to 31-3-1993. In Rao, Kameshwara:
Law of Damages & Compensation (5th Edn., Vol. I, p. 528), the learned author states that right to mesne profits presupposes a wrong whereas a right to rent proceeds on the basis that there is a contract. But there is an intermediate class of cases in which the possession though not wrongful in the beginning assumes a wrongful character when it is unauthorisedly retained and in such cases, the owner is not entitled to claim mesne profits but only the fair rent. In the present case, in view of the permission granted by this Court enabling the appellant to use and occupy the property up to 31-3-1993, it cannot be said that the possession of the appellant was illegal and wrongful and in the nature of trespass. In the circumstances, damages were claimable not on the basis of mesne profits but on the basis of fair rent. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the arbitrator was right in applying income/profit method, the arbitrator has erred in not taking into account the expenses which the appellant was required to bear for maintenance of the property (including payment of taxes). The said property was under requisition up to 10-3-1987. The fair rent of the property was Rs 40,793 which was accepted by the respondent up to 28-2-1988, which fact has not been considered by the arbitrator. In the municipal records, the value of the building which is in dilapidated condition was shown at Rs 27,700 which was 10% of the original cost, which fact has also not been taken into account by the arbitrator. Similarly, there was no reason for the arbitrator to assess damages for larger open spaces @ Rs 10 per sq ft per month when these open spaces form part of RCA No.113/11 Page No. 18 of 21 the main building for which damages were assessed @ Rs 15 per sq ft per month. The respondent did not submit the valuation report in support of its claim for damages. No valuer was examined on behalf of the respondent claimant. In the present case, buildings were old and their age has not been taken into account by the arbitrator particularly when the said property is sought to be compared with the property situated at 2/10, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi. No sale instances have been put in evidence. The evidence of three witnesses who were examined on behalf of the respondent was not cogent and reliable for the purpose of assessing the damages. These three witnesses were laymen and they were not experts in valuation. The arbitrator has not taken into account the discounting factors, such as, the age of the buildings, dilapidated condition of the buildings, dilapidated condition of the flats, expenses to upgrade the buildings, etc. There is no evidence to support the rate of Rs 15 per sq ft per month for the built-up area. There is no reason as to why the carpet area and not the built-up area has been taken into account. The point which we would like to emphasise is that a large number of relevant factors have not been taken into account by the arbitrator while awarding the damages to the extent of Rs 6.5 crores (approximately)."
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that where initial induction of a party in the property is not illegal but becomes illegal during the course of occupation plaintiff would not be entitled to damages but only to fair rent of the premises. In the present case plaintiff therefore would not be entitled to payment RCA No.113/11 Page No. 19 of 21 of award mesne profits/damages from the defendant as claimed. As regards entitlement for payment of rent plaintiff has not led any evidence to show what was the fair rent of the suit property occupied by the defendant. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the defendant has not cross examined the plaintiff on the aspect of the damages this court deems it fit to award Rs.750/- per month to the plaintiff as fair rent in the suit premises. Issue no. 5 is decided accordingly.
28. Since issue no.3 to 5 have been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, plaintiff would be entitled to decree for possession of suit premises as shown in red colour in the site plan in the suit property measuring 50 sq. yards out of Khasra no.393/264 bearing no.B-107 (old no.203), New Ashok Nagar Delhi-96. Plaintiff would also be entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.750/- per month as fair rent from the defendant towards unauthorized occupation of the suit property with effect from the date of filing of the suit till date of handing over of the possession. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
29. A copy of this order along with TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
30. File be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Steno and Announced in the Open Court today i.e. 22.09.2011 (REETESH SINGH) Addl. Distt. Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi RCA No.113/11 Page No. 20 of 21 RCA No.113/11 Page No. 21 of 21