Delhi District Court
Smt. Nirmala vs Sh. Hitesh Kumar on 27 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO.565/2018
CNR NO.: DLND01-004551-2018
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SMT. NIRMALA
WIFE OF SH. BAL KISHAN
R/O RZ-1257, GALI NO.5/1,
MAIN SAGAR PUR,
NEW DELHI-110046
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SH. HITESH KUMAR
SON OF SH. BAL KISHAN
2. SMT. PUJA
WIFE OF SH. HITESH KUMAR
BOTH R/O RZ-1257, SECOND FLOOR,
GALI NO.5/1, MAIN SAGAR PUR,
NEW DELHI-110046
.....DEFENDANTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.05.2018
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF FINAL ARGUMENT : 01.03.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 27.03.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, damages and mesne profit filed by plaintiff Smt. Nirmala against her son Hitesh Kumar and his wife Smt. Pooja (impleaded as defendant CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 20 No.1 & 2 respectively).
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the plaint, are;
(a) Plaintiff claims herself to be the exclusive owner of built up property measuring 50 sq.yrds bearing No.RZ-1257, Street No.5/1, Main Sagar Pur, Delhi-110034 (hereinafter referred to as 'the property'). The property consists of ground floor and two floors above it. Plaintiff is residing along with her husband on the first floor while her elder son Neeraj Kumar is residing on the ground floor of the property. Defendant No.1 & 2 are stated to be residing on the second floor of the property.
(b) Defendant No.1 is stated to be a taxi driver while defendant No.2 is working in a call centre at Gurugram (Haryana). Marriage between defendants was solemnized on 02.12.2009 and subsequent to the marriage, they were allowed by the plaintiff to occupy the second floor of the property as licensees. Soon after marriage, defendants started harassing the plaintiff and they used to abuse her without any reason. Defendant No.2 lodged a false complaint against the plaintiff and her family members on which an FIR No.0982/2015 under Section 406/498A/34 IPC came to be registered at Police Station Sagar Pur. Defendants have been blackmailing and putting pressure on the plaintiff to transfer the property in their name. CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 20
(c) Defendants have been threatening to kill the plaintiff and her husband. Plaintiff lodged various complaints against defendant No.2 with SHO, Police Station Sagar Pur but no action was taken. Husband of the plaintiff had dis-owned and disinherited the defendants by publishing a public notice in a Newspaper.
(d) Plaintiff served a notice dated 13.03.2018 on the defendants asking them to vacate the second floor of the property. It was clarified in the notice that defendants would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, in case, they fail to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the property. The notice was duly served but defendants failed to vacate the property. Hence, the present suit.
3. Plaintiff has sought the following reliefs;
i. Decree of possession in respect of second floor of the property bearing No.RZ-1257, Street No.5/1, Main Sagar Pur, Delhi-110043;
ii. Decree for future damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the period 01.05.2018 till the possession is handed over by the defendants;
iii. Pendent-elite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the damages;
iv. Decree of mandatory injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or transferring the possession of second floor of the property;
CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 20
4. Defendants were served with the summons of the suit. Defendant No.1 did not appear despite service of summons and accordingly, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.10.2018. Defendant No.2 appeared but did not file the written statement within the stipulated period. Consequently, her defence was stuck off vide order dated 05.01.2019. She did not challenge the said order and it attained finality. Thereafter, on 01.04.2019, she filed the written statement with the Reader of the court when the court was on leave. The said written statement is on judicial file.
5. Trial proceeded and plaintiff was directed to lead evidence. Plaintiff examined two witnesses. PW-1/Nirmala (plaintiff herself) and PW- 2/Bal Kishan (husband of the plaintiff). Both supported the averments made in the plaint.
6. PW-1 filed her evidence by way of affidavit and tendered the relevant documents. In order to prove the ownership of property, she placed on record the GPA, agreement-to-sell, affidavit, receipt and Will dated 16.08.2005 executed by the previous owner of the property. The documents are Ex.PW-1/1 (colly). The site plan of the property is Mark-A. The FIR bearing No.0982/2015 under Section 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sagar Pur is Mark-B. The copy of the complaints made by the plaintiff with the concerned CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 20 SHO are Ex.PW-1/4 to Ex.PW-1/9. The copy of Newspaper dated 24.05.2018 wherein the notice of dis-inheritance was published is Mark-C. The legal notice dated 13.03.2018 is Ex.PW-1/11 while the postal receipts and electricity bill are Ex.PW-1/12 and Ex.PW-1/14 respectively. The copy of water bill and the receipt of property tax for the year 2018-19 are Mark-D & E respectively.
7. PW-2/Bal Kishan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW- 2/A and supported the plaintiff's version.
8. Despite repeated opportunities, defendants failed to cross-examine the witnesses and their right to cross-examine was closed vide order dated 21.12.2021. The matter was posted for final arguments. In the meantime, defendant No.2 moved an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking liberty to place on record certain facts and relevant documents. By means of this application, defendant No.2 submitted that there is a collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. She sought directions to place on record the settlement order dated 09.04.2013, purportedly arrived at between plaintiff and defendant No.1. She claimed that defendant No.1 had been appearing on behalf of the plaintiff in the mediation proceedings in some other matter. She submitted that this fact runs counter to the averments made by the plaintiff that she had dis-inherited defendant No.1. She also CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 20 sought liberty to place on record the copy of an ex-parte judgment passed under Domestic Violence Act. This application was partly allowed and defendant No.2 was granted liberty to place on record the ex-parte judgment passed under the Domestic Violence Act. However, the mediation proceedings were not allowed to be placed on record on the ground that the same were confidential and the proceedings were not acted upon.
9. Final arguments were heard.
10. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the property. He filed written submissions along with certain judgments. He argued that defendants have no defence to the plaintiff's claim. He contended that defendants were allowed to occupy the property as licensee and the license was duly terminated vide legal notice dated 13.03.2018. He mentioned that on termination of the said license, defendants had no right to remain in possession of the property. He submitted that plaintiff and her husband are senior citizens. He mentioned that plaintiff has every right to peacefully reside in her property. He mentioned that defendants have made the life of the plaintiff miserable. He argued that the relationship between the parties is acrimonious and the police complaints made by the plaintiff demonstrates this fact. He mentioned that defendants CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 20 have no right to continue to remain in possession of the property. He prayed that the suit may be decreed. In order to support his contentions, counsel has relied on the decision in the matter of "Vinay Verma Vs Kanika Pascricha & Anr." 265 (2019) DLT 211, 'Shumigta Didi Sandhu Vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors.' FAO (OS) 341/2007, decided on 26.10.2010, 'Arti Sharma & Anr. Vs Ganga Saran' RSA 14/2021, decided on 14.08.2021, 'Preeti Satija Vs Raj Kumari' 2014 SCC OnLine 188 and 'Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja' 2020 (11) SCALE 476.
11. On the other hand, counsel for defendant No.2 has submitted that there is a collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. He contended that defendant No.2 has an independent right to continue to remain in possession of the second floor of the property. He mentioned that right of defendant No.2 to remain in occupation of the property has been recognized in various judicial pronouncements. Counsel argued that defendant No.2 was residing in a shared house hold and she cannot be evicted from the property. He mentioned that an ex-parte Residence Order has been passed in favour of defendant No.2 on 30.09.2016 by the Court of Ms Richa Gosain Solanki, Mahila Court, South-West (01), Dwarka, New Delhi in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. He contended that the CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 20 residence order passed under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act has attained finality as no appeal was filed against the said order. He mentioned that the Mahila Court duly recognized the right of defendant no. 2 and issued directions that she shall not be dispossessed from the share house-hold. Counsel has submitted that the suit cannot be decreed against defendant No. 2. He has prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
12. I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments and the material on record.
13. The fact that plaintiff is the owner of the property stands established. PW-1/plaintiff has deposed that she purchased a plot of land on 16.08.2005 vide various documents including GPA, Agreement-to- Sell, Affidavit, Will. She has deposed that after purchasing the plot of land, she kept raising construction on the same from time to time. She mentioned that the construction was raised from her own funds and resources. She stated that she had been paying House Tax, Electricity and Water bills of the property. The documents of the property were tendered in evidence and the same are Ex.PW-1/1 (colly). The water bill, electricity bill and the house tax receipt are Mark D, Ex.PW1/14 and Mark E respectively. Since, plaintiff has not been cross-examined by the defendants, her testimony has remained CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 20 uncontroverted. The position remains same in respect of the testimony of PW-2 as he has also not been cross-examined by the defendants. The testimony of these witnesses that they are senior citizens has gone unchallenged. Thus, it stands proved on record that plaintiff is the owner of the property. It also stands established that plaintiff and her husband are senior citizens.
14. It stands established that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants are strained. Plaintiff deposed that marriage between the defendants was solemnized on 02.12.2009. She has mentioned that after marriage, defendants were permitted to use the second floor of the property. She deposed that the behaviour and attitude of defendants was rude towards her and her husband. She mentioned that defendants never respected her and they have been abusing her. She mentioned that defendant No.2 had lodged a false complaint against her which culminated in the registration of FIR No. 0982/2015, under Section 406/498A/34 of IPC at Police Station Sagar Pur. She deposed that the defendants started blackmailing and pressurizing her to transfer the property in the name of defendant No.
2. She stated that she did not concede to the demands of defendants. She mentioned that defendants left no stone unturned to harass her and her husband. She stated that defendant No.2 even extending CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 20 threats to kill her. Her testimony, in this regard, has remained unchallenged.
15. In order to support her version that she was harassed by the defendants, plaintiff tendered in evidence various complaints lodged by her with the concerned Police Station. The complaints dated 04.03.2018, 15.03.2018, 27.12.2018, 04.03.2014, 29.05.2014 and 05.09.2016 are Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/19 respectively. I have gone through these complaints. The complaints does provide support and corroboration to the testimony of plaintiff that she and her husband were ill-treated by the defendants. The complaints made by the plaintiff are primarily regarding the ill-treatment of defendant No.2, nevertheless, these complaints demonstrates that the relationship between the parties were strained. These complaints fortify the arguments of the plaintiff that she was abused and ill-treated by defendants. In one of the complaints dated 29.05.2014, plaintiff disclosed to the police that she was beaten by defendant No.2. The other complaints also contained similar allegations of ill-treatment by defendant No.2. The testimony of PW-1, coupled with the complaints made to the police, establish that defendant No.2 had been ill-treating plaintiff. PW-2 has supported and corroborated the version of his wife on each aspect. Thus, it stands proved that the CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 20 relationship between the parties were acrimonious.
16. As observed earlier, in the present matter, the defence of defendants was stuck off by the court. Even after the defence of a defendant is stuck off, he is at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. Record shows that defendants were given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses but they failed to do so. Defendant No.1 chose to abandon the proceedings while defendant No.2 did not cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses despite repeated opportunities. Resultantly, defendants have failed to offer any defence to the plaintiff's claim.
17. It is the sole contention of the defendant No.2 that she has been living in a share household and therefore, she cannot be evicted from the property. Counsel for defendant No.2 has argued that residence order was passed in favour of defendant No.2 under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act. He has contended that in view of the said order dated 30.09.2016, defendant No.2 cannot be evicted from the property. The argument is flawed. The residence order under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act does not dis-entitle the plaintiff to seek eviction of defendant No.2 by filing a civil suit for possession.
18. The interplay between a civil suit for possession and the right of daughter-in-law to continue to reside in the shared property on the CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 20 force of an order under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act came up for consideration in the matter of "Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja" 2021 (1) SCC 414. While dealing with the effect of orders passed under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act in the proceedings initiated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction, the Supreme Court made the following observations which aptly describes the scope of inquiry in such like cases. The Apex Court observed;
"133. .....Section 17(2) itself contemplates eviction or exclusion of aggrieved person from a shared household in accordance with the procedure established by law. The conclusion is inescapable that a proceeding in a competent court for eviction or exclusion is contemplated by the Statutory Scheme of Act, 2005. Thus, there is neither any express nor implied bar in initiation of civil proceedings in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Further, Section 26 also contemplate grant of relief of right of residence under Section 19 in any legal proceedings before a Civil Court or Family Court or Criminal Court affecting the aggrieved person. The proceedings might be initiated by aggrieved person or against the aggrieved person herself before or after the commencement of Act, 2005......."
19. The Supreme Court held in Satish Chander Ahuja's case (supra) that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and the proceedings of the Civil Court are independent proceedings. However, the finding or order passed by one forum has to be considered by the other forum. The court held that the order which CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 20 has been passed by the Magistrate under Domestic Violence Act shall be relevant evidence and fully admissible in the civil suit but the said order shall only be one of the evidence in the suit and shall not preclude the civil court to determine the issue raised in the suit or to grant the relief claimed by the plaintiff. The court observed that the order passed under the Domestic Violence Act has to be given due weightage but its evidentiary value is limited. The observation made by the court are as under;
"163. ......The order dated 26.11.2016 which was passed by the Magistrate under D.V. Act, 2005, shall be relevant evidence and fully admissible in the civil suit, but the above order shall only be one of the evidence in the suit but shall neither preclude the civil court to determine the issues raised in the suit or to grant the relief claimed by the plaintiff Dr. Prem Kant Ahuja. The Civil Court in such suit can consider the issues and may grant relief if the plaintiff is able to prove her case. The order passed under D.V. Act whether interim or final shall be relevant and have to be given weight as one of evidence in the civil suit but the evidentiary value of such evidence is limited. The findings arrived therein by the magistrate are although not binding on the Civil Court but the order having passed under the Act, 2005, which is an special Act has to be given its due weight.
164. ......We need to observe that in event a judgment of criminal court is relevant as per Sections 40 to 43 of Evidence Act in civil proceedings, the judgment can very well be taken note of and there is no embargo on the civil court to place reliance upon it as a corroborative material......"
20. Coming to the present matter, defendant No.2 has placed reliance on CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 20 an ex-parte order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Mahila Court whereby her application under the Domestic Violence Act was allowed and a residence order was passed in her favour. The relevant part of the residence order is as under:
".....Accordingly, it is directed that respondents shall not dispossess the complainant or her sons from the share household or alienate/dispose/ encumber the share household at RZ-1257, 2nd Floor, Street No.5/1, Main Sagar Pur, New Delhi-110046 without making suitable arrangements for residence of complainant and the sons and without following due process of law."
21. The residence order passed by the Magistrate under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act does not put a blanket ban on filing of a suit for eviction against the aggrieved party. It has been held in Satish Chander Ahuja's case (supra) that such an order must be considered by the court and given due weight while granting the relief sought in the civil suit for possession. The Supreme Court has categorically observed in the the said matter that in such like cases, the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction or possession by the owner of the property is maintainable before a competent court. The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant is covered by the expression 'save in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law'. Thus, plaintiff, being the owner of the property, could very well seek CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 20 eviction of defendant No.2 even though a residence order has been passed in her favour under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act.
22. Record shows that defendant No.2 has neither filed the written statement nor did she cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. It was held in Satish Chander Ahuja's case (supra) that in case, defendant resists the decree on the ground of her right of residence in the suit property, it is for her to prove her claim in the suit both by pleadings and evidence. The court has further held that to treat a person as respondent for the purpose of Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act, it has to be proved that person arrayed as respondent has committed an act of Domestic Violence on the aggrieved person. The relevant observations made by the court is as under;
"111. ......As noted above, one of the conditions to treat a person as a respondent is that "against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act".
The defendant in her pleadings having claimed that she has right of residence in the suit property, she for successful resisting the suit has to plead and prove that she has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent, which is implicit in the definition of the aggrieved person itself as given in the Section 2(a) of the Act, 2005. It is, further, relevant to notice that although learned Magistrate passed an interim order in the application filed by the defendant under Section 12 on 26.11.2016 but said order was interim order which was passed on the satisfaction of the Magistrate that "the application prima facie disclosed that the respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence". For granting any relief by the Civil CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 20 Court under Section 19 it has to be proved that the respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence on the aggrieved person. To treat a person as the "respondent" for purposes of Section 2(q) it has to be proved that person arrayed as respondent has committed an act of domestic violence on the aggrieved person.
112. We, thus, are of the view that for the purposes of determination of right of defendant under Sections 17 and 19 read with Section 26 in the suit in question the plaintiff can be treated as "respondent", but for the grant of any relief to the defendant or for successful resisting the suit of the plaintiff necessary conditions for grant of relief as prescribed under the Act, 2005 has to be pleaded and proved by the defendant, only then the relief can be granted by the Civil Court to the defendant."
23. Defendant No.2 has not pleaded that she has a right to residence in the suit property. The plea was raised by her for the first time at the stage of final arguments. She has not cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses to demonstrate that plaintiff committed any act of Domestic Violence. There is no evidence to demonstrate that defendant No.2 was subjected to any act of Domestic Violence by the plaintiff. Plaintiff's right to recover the possession from defendant No.2 by filing a civil suit and adopting the due process of law cannot be defeated merely because of the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act. Defendant No.2 has failed to plead and prove the necessary conditions for resisting the CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 20 suit of the plaintiff. On the other hand, plaintiff's claim stands duly established.
24. There is evidence to establish that plaintiff and her husband are senior citizens. Defendant No.2 has not challenged this aspect. The testimonies of the plaintiff and her husband about their respective age has gone unchallenged. Counsel for plaintiff submitted during the course of the arguments that a petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 22 Rule 3 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Rule, 2016 was allowed and directions have been given by the District Magistrate that defendants should be evicted from the property. Counsel has placed on record the copy of the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, New Delhi wherein defendants have been directed to evict the property within seven days. This order provides support to the contention of the plaintiff that she is a senior citizen and defendants have been ill-treating her.
25. In the matter of "Vinay Verma vs. Kanika Pasricha and Ors." 265 (2019) DLT 211, the High Court of Delhi examined the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act and laid down guidelines to be followed by the courts in order to strike a balance between the said two acts. The said guidelines read as under:
"1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 20 relationship between the parties and the son's/ daughter's family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son- in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in- laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son's family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in- law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in- law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
26. In the matter of "Arti Sharma & Anr. Vs Ganga Saran" RSA 14/2021, decided on 02.08.2021, the High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal filed against an order of eviction passed by the trial court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC by making observation that the plea of share household appears to have been put up by the daughter-in- law as a faint plea and as an argument of last resort. CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 20
27. Coming back to the present matter, plaintiff has established that she is the exclusive owner of the property. The plot of land was purchased by her before the marriage of defendants. Plaintiff has deposed that she raised construction on the property from her own funds. She has mentioned that defendants were in permissive possession of the property. She has mentioned that both the defendant are working and they have independent source of income. There is evidence to establish that plaintiff and her husband have been ill-treated by the defendants. On the other hand, defendants have not put forward any defence except the plea that the property is a shared household. Defendant No.2 has neither pleaded nor led evidence to establish that she has been subjected to any act of Domestic Violence by the plaintiff. In the absence of pleadings and evidence, the bald plea of share household does not advance the cause of defendants. Although, defendant No.2 has argued that there is a collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 but there is no substantive evidence to establish this aspect. The plaintiff's claim to recover the possession of the property stands established.
28. Coming to the aspect of damages. Plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month from the defendants but she has not led any evidence to show the expected rent of a similarly situated CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 20 accommodation. However, it is also correct that although defendants were only in permissive possession of the second floor of the property but they continued to occupy the same even after the plaintiff directed them to vacate the property vide notice dated 13.03.2018. In view of this, notional damages to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month are being awarded.
29. In view of the discussions made in the afore-mentioned paras, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff with following reliefs:
i. Decree of possession in respect of second floor of the property bearing No.RZ-1257, Street No.5/1, Main Sagar Pur, Delhi-110043;
ii. Decree for future damages at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month from the period 01.05.2018 till the possession is handed over by the defendants;
iii. Pendent-elite and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the damages;
iv. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Plaintiff shall furnish the deficient court fee, if any.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 27.03.2023 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) Addl. District Judge-02 & Waqf Tribunal Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/27.03.2023 CS No.565/2018 Nirmala Vs Hitesh Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 20