Delhi District Court
Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs . Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati on 4 October, 2012
Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati
IN THE COURT OF INDER JEET SINGH, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03,
ROOM NO. 308, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
CS No. 340/2010
Deepak Gopal Chaphekar,
310 Sarva Priya Apartments,
New Delhi110016.
Through Attorney Shri Anil Apte,
R/o E506, Som Vihar Apts., New Delhi. ...... Plaintiff
Versus
Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati,
Flat No. 7, N252, Greater Kailash Part I,
New Delhi110048.
Also At : C/o Mr. R.K. Madan,
D981, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi110065. ...... Defendant
04.10.2012
JUDGMENT
(on plaintiff's application dated 08.05.2012 under order XII Rule 6 CPC) 1.1 (Introduction) - Plaintiff Deepak Gopal Chaphekar through his Attorney Shri Anil Apte (firstly, Special Power of Attorney dated 29.11.2010 CS No. 340/2011 Page 1 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati was filed and then another Special Power of Attorney dated 07.05.2012 duly notarized has been filed) filed Suit for Possession, Mesne Profits / Damages against the defendant Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati in respect of Flat No. 7, measuring 750 sq. feet, located on the first floor, bearing No. N252, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, comprising two bedrooms, two bathrooms, drawingcumdining hall, kitchen, store, open terrace with enclosed space and open space on the roof (more particularly shown in the rough site plan) (in brief the suit property). It was let out to defendant by lease deed dated 01.09.1991 for a period of 5 years on a consolidated monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/ (i.e. Rs. 2,500/ as rent, excluding water, power and electricity charges payable as per separate meter provided + Rs. 1,000/ for furniture). On expiry of lease on the midnight of 31.08.1996, no fresh lease agreement was executed. In or about 20082009, the monthly rent was increased to Rs. 3,750/. In September 2009, it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that the defendant abundant the suit property several years ago and the plaintiff, after retirement of his wife working with AIIMS, left India and settled abroad. Since June 2010, the plaintiff was receiving the rent of Rs. 3,750/ per month by way of cheques issued on behalf of defendant by Shri R.K. Madan, R/o D981, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, CS No. 340/2011 Page 2 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati claiming to be Attorney of defendant, who refused to disclose about the whereabouts of defendant, despite request. The defendant has not paid water utility bills since 23.09.2002 and Delhi Jal Board has stopped water supply. The electricity bills shows meter reading nil, for want of consumption. The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 21.10.2010 by terminating the tenancy w.e.f midnight of 30.11.2010, calling upon the defendant to handover the plaintiff vacant and peaceful possession of suit property on 01.12.2010 at 10 am, while cautioning him to pay damages @ Rs. 5,000/ per day, as use and occupation charges in case he fails to vacate the property. The notice was sent by courier / registered cover, at the address of suit property, to the defendant, the former envelope returned back undelivered with remark "shifted" and and the latter returned with postal authorities remark "door lock since long so RTS (returned to sender)". The notice was also dispatched to defendant at the address of / C/o Shri R.K. Madan, which was received by him on behalf of defendant but no reply has been received. The defendant also failed to vacate the suit property. That is why the suit has been filed.
1.2 The defendant opposed the suit and the application, firstly, the plaint has not been signed by a competent person and the Power of CS No. 340/2011 Page 3 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati Attorney dated 29.11.2010 is not notarized document, the plaint is no plaint in the eyes of law. The lease deed dated 01.09.1991 is matter of record and there was no consolidated monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/ as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant is a tenant protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and suit is liable to be dismissed, being hit by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, since the monthly rent was Rs. 2,750/ and a sum of Rs. 1,000/ is being separately towards hire charges of furniture. As such, suit for possession is not maintainable. Initially, it was rent of Rs. 2,500/ + Rs. 1,000/, which was enhanced to Rs. 2,750/ + Rs. 1,000/ and the rent is below Rs. 3,500/, as enhancement was also carried from Rs. 2,500/ to Rs. 2,750/. No notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been served, therefore, there is no question of termination of tenancy nor Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable, since defendant is protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2.1 On the basis of defendant's written statement, the plaintiff filed application, under consideration, that there are admissions in the written statement and also in paragraph 3 of written statement that the rent is Rs. 3,750/ and there is no dispute of lease agreement between the parties. CS No. 340/2011 Page 4 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for judgment for possession on the basis of admissions.
2.2 During the course of arguments, the plaintiff, while referring the plaint, its substance has already been referred in paragraph 1.1, above, and also relying upon Karnani Properties Ltd. vs. Augustin AIR 1957 SC 309, submits that there are three requirements viz. (i) the relationship of the landlord and the tenant; (ii) the monthly rent is more than Rs. 3,500/ of the premises and; (iii) the tenancy has been determined by notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
2.3 The defendant has admitted lease deed dated 01.09.1991, which had created relationship of the landlord and the tenant, the first requirement of law is satisfied on such admission. In addition, the plaint has been signed by Shri Anil Apte and notarized Power of Attorney has also been placed on record, an omission or irregularity to file notarized Power of Attorney at initial stage, would not nonsuit the suit. 2.4 The defendant also admits that the total rent is Rs. 3,750/ and defendant is not having protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The CS No. 340/2011 Page 5 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati defendant through his Attorney was tendering the rent by way of cheque of Rs. 3,500/ but subsequently, after receipt of notice, separate cheques for Rs. 2,750/ and Rs. 1,000/ was being tendered, however, the defendant cannot derive any benefit, since amount of charges for furniture are appurtenant to the suit property and both the amounts are to be considered as rent. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff fortifies the contentions, while relying upon
1. Karnani Properties Ltd. vs. Augustin AIR 1957 SC 309 - while considering the provisions of West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, on the point of definition of rent, it was held that the term "rent" has not been defined in the Act. Hence, it must be taken to have been used in its ordinary dictionary meaning. If, as already indicated, the term "rent" is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and its appurtenances but also of furnishings, electric installations and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord.
2. Annick Chaymotty @ Devayani vs. Prem Mohini Mehra 95 (2002) DLT 312 - the provisions of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defining rent was discussed along with the definition of premises under section 2(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and held that the comprehensive enough to include all payments made by the tenant to the landlord not only for use and occupation of the premises rented but also payment made for fixtures and fittings and all other amenities provided in the premises to the tenant by his landlord, while referring the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. vs. Augustin AIR 1957 SC 309.
3. Om Prakash Malhotra vs. Shankar Lal Aggarwal MANU/DE/1322/2011 - held that rent of the property was a consolidated rent of Rs. 4,100/; even though the nomenclature of the two agreements was a lease agreement i.e. Rs. 2,700/ and hire charge agreement for fittings and fixtures i.e. Rs. 1,400/. The bar of Section 50 of the DRCA was clearly not CS No. 340/2011 Page 6 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati attracted. The rent being above Rs. 3,500/ i.e. Rs. 4,100/, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2.5 The notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent to the defendant at the address of the suit property as well as at the address of Shri R.K. Madan, the courier envelops were received back with report "door lock" and also "shifted", however, the notice sent to defendant at the address of Shri R.K. Madan was served. The notices were sent at the correct addresses by prepaying postal charges and it suffice the requirement of law. There is no flaw in the notice nor any confusion with regard to termination of tenancy, being projected by the defendant. The plaintiff fortifies his contentions, while relying upon
(a) M/s. Madan & Co. vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand AIR 1989 SC 630 - held that dispatch of notice at the address of tenant by post by prepaying postal charges, there is compliance of requirement of law to sent / serve notice.
(b) M.A. Ghani vs. P. Rami Reddy 2003 (2) ALD 801 - when the notice was sent and it was returned with an endorsement that receiver is absent from the address for seven days, there is a presumption of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act of presumption of service on notice being served on correct address, prepaying and posting by registered post.
It is concluded that there are admissions visavis satisfaction of requirement of law and plaintiff is entitled for judgment in his favour under order XII Rule 6 CPC.
CS No. 340/2011 Page 7 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati 3.1 The defendant opposes the application on the basis of documentary record of lease deed and other documents filed by plaintiff in support of the plaint visavis on the basis of contentions raised in the written statement, which have been referred in paragraph 1.2,above. There is a relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties to the suit, however, this admission does not entitle the plaintiff for possession because the defendant has denied all other allegations visavis the defendant is protected under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In addition, the plaintiff had filed Special Power of Attorney on 08.11.2011 but it not notarized, therefore, signature of Shri Anil Apte on the plaint is without any proper authority and suit is not maintainable. The application is liable to be dismissed. The defendant relies upon Sagar Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Canara Bank 1997 (40) DRJ - the application under order XII Rule 6 CPC was dismissed, since the plaint was not signed and verified and plaint was not instituted by competent person.
3.2 The defendant does not admit the monthly rent of Rs. 3,750/. Initially, the monthly rent was Rs. 2,500/ + Rs. 1,000/ as furniture hire charges and later monthly rent was enhanced by 10% from Rs. 2,500/ to CS No. 340/2011 Page 8 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati Rs. 2,750/ + Rs. 1,000/ furniture hire charges. Therefore, the monthly rent is Rs. 2,750/, which is below Rs. 3,500/ and defendant is protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The furniture hire charges is neither rent nor it can be clubbed with the lease amount of Rs. 2,750/. Even lease agreement dated 01.09.1991, the amount of rent of Rs. 2,500/ has been mentioned specifically segregating it from furniture hire charges of Rs. 1,000/. Thus for want of admissions, the application is liable to be dismissed. The defendant also relies upon M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) JT 2010 (4) SC 574 - the plaintiff can be entitled for judgment on admissions under order XII Rule 6 CPC, if the same are clear and unequivocal admissions, however, whether or not there is clear unambiguous admission is essentially a question of fact and depends on the facts of each case.
3.3 The legal notice was never served on the defendant, even as per case of plaintiff. There was no question of addressing or dispatching any notice to the defendant at the address of Shri R.K. Madan, therefore, dispatch of such notice or receipt of such notice at the address of Shri R.K. Madan has no consequences. Otherwise, the defendant is a statutory tenant protected under the DRC Act. Lastly, the plaintiff has been accepting CS No. 340/2011 Page 9 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati the amount, meaning thereby, there have been intentions to continue with the tenancy and the alleged notice stand waived off by the plaintiff in terms of Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The application is liable to be dismissed, as not only there are triable issues but also there is no clear or unambiguous admissions by the defendant to entitle the plaintiff for judgment on suit for possession. (4) FINDINGS The rival contentions are assessed in the light of statutory provisions of law, particularly Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, Sections 105, 106 and 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the law declared in precedent / case law visavis the material on record.
4.1 Firstly, authorship of the plaint has been questioned by the defendant. Pliant was accompanying Special Power of Attorney by the plaintiff in favour of Shri Anil Apte but it was not notarized and subsequently, another Special Power of Attorney dated 07.05.2012 was filed by the plaintiff. Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes a legal CS No. 340/2011 Page 10 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati presumption of Power of Attorney duly executed, when authenticated by the Notary Public. As appears, the plaintiff immediately rectified the irregularity, while realizing from the written statement of defendant. Since the irregularity has been rectified, therefore, under the legal presumption of Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, the suit has been signed by an Attorney, authorized by the plaintiff. The application cannot be discarded for such reasons.
4.2 There is no dispute of execution of lease agreement dated 01.09.1991, therefore, it is an admitted case of parties that plaintiff let out the suit property as landlord and defendant took it as a tenant. The relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant is not disputed.
4.3 Whether the monthly rent is Rs. 3,750/ or Rs. 2,750/ (plus Rs. 1,000/ as furniture hire charges but not rent amount)? Whether there is admission of monthly rent of Rs. 3,750/ by the defendant? This issue goes to the root of case, from the point of determining the applicability of appropriate law and it can be decided on the basis of material available, because both the parties have rival contentions but they do not dispute that total amount comes to Rs. 3,750/. According to the plaintiff, the amount of CS No. 340/2011 Page 11 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati hire charges of furniture of Rs. 1,000/ is component of rent and according to the defendant, this amount of Rs. 1,000/ being paid as hire charges of furniture is not a component of rent. In case, the total amount of rent is considered as Rs. 3,750/, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act would not be applicable and consequently, provisions of Sections 106 of the Transfer of Property Act becomes applicable. However, in case the total amount of rent is considered as Rs. 2,750/, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will be applicable and defendant will be a protected tenant and provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act will not be applicable because of rider of Section 14 and Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
4.4 By taking consolidating stock of facts on record and the provisions of law visavis the law laid down in precedent / case law, it is held that monthly rent is Rs. 3,750/, for the following reasons
(i) the lease deed dated 01.09.1991 is an unregistered document, however, both the parties admits that the suit property was let out at the rate of Rs. 2,500/ + furniture hire charges for Rs. 1,000/, total amount comes to Rs. 3,500/. Later, the amount comes to Rs. 3,750/;
(ii) one of the test for determining the rent is the amount payable by the tenant to the landlord. Reliance can be placed on Sewa International Fashions vs. Suman Kathpalia C.M No. 1096/1999, CS No. 340/2011 Page 12 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati decided on 13.08.1999, wherein it was held that rent includes not only what is originally described rent in the agreement between a landlord and a tenant but also those payments which are made for amenities provided by the landlord under the agreement between him and the tenant. The payment made towards the maintenance charges of the premises rented out and also for providing amenities to the tenant would also come within the expression 'rent' as rent includes all payments agreed to be paid by the tenant to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building but also of furnishing, electric installations and other amenities;
(iii) the test may be illustrated by another example, water and electricity charges, in fixed sum may be made part of the rent; where there is no contract to pay the electric charges, they do not form part of the rent. Where electric charges vary from month to month, then it is not rent but if parties agreed to include a fixed amount of electricity, that will be rent (reliance can be placed on Chhotey Lal vs. Kewal Krishan Mehta AIR 1971 SC 987). Further, in Inder Vijay Singh vs. NDMC 1995 RLR 254 - the term "rent" is comprehensive enough to include the payment of all amenities agreed to be paid by the tenant. The payment of hirer charges of Air Conditioners, agreed in the agreement, could be included in the term "rent";
(iv) the law laid down by Apex Court in Karnani Properties Ltd. (Supra) and it was also laid down in Inder Vijay Singh and Om Prakash Malhotra (Supra) that charges towards furniture or like air conditioners supplied by the landlord for use in the suit property are rent. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,000/ being paid under the head of hire charges for furniture is a component of rent, being separately alleged by the defendant as Rs. 2,750/. The total amount of rent is Rs. 3,750/, which was being paid by the defendant either by consolidated cheque of Rs. 3,750/ or sometime by segregating it in two parts of Rs. 2,750/ and Rs. 1,000/, which does not matter as total rent amount is Rs. 3,750/;
(v) it is not a triable issue nor it requires evidence to determine the CS No. 340/2011 Page 13 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati quantum of rent, as the total amount of rent is Rs. 3,750/, out of which, a sum of Rs. 1,000/ is towards furniture hire charges. Otherwise, it is also the case of both the parties that there was only single lease deed dated 01.091991 with regard to the suit property and the furniture and in such similar lease deed, both the amounts were mentioned and;
(vi) defendant has no protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, since the rent is above Rs. 3,500/ and it is admitted case of defendant that total amount is Rs. 3,750/ per month payable to the plaintiff. Lastly, the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act applies and it is to be seen whether it has been applied properly. 4.5 The notice dated 21.10.2011 was sent to the defendant at the address of suit property and also he was addressed notice at the address of Shri R.K. Madan by mentioning care of Shri R.K. Madan. The notice at the address of suit property remained unserved because of door was closed or shift report. Whereas, the notice sent at the address of Shri R.K. Madan was received by him. For the following reasons, it is held that not only the notice is in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act but also it was served upon the defendant through Sh. R.K. Madan
(a) Shri R.K. Madan had acknowledged receipt of notice on AD card and it is repeated that notice was of 21.10.2010;
(b) Shri R.K. Madan had issued 17 cheques from 04.10.2010 to 15.09.2011, from time to time, under his signature in favour of CS No. 340/2011 Page 14 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati plaintiff Shri Deepak Gopal Chapekar and the plaintiff had also issued receipts corresponding to the cheques issued from time to time. It means Shri R.K. Madan is acting for and on behalf of defendant Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati. Further, the cheques were issued subsequent to receipt of notice. Now defendant cannot say or allege that receipt of notice by Shri R.K. Madan has no consequences, the reasons of defendant are misplaced. The notice was served on the defendant through Shri R.K. Madan;
(c) the notice dated 21.10.2010, firstly, states that the tenancy expired on efflux of time and secondly, the tenancy is determined by the midnight of 30.11.2010. Once a lease period expires and suit is not filed immediately on expiry of tenancy, it becomes month by month tenancy {reliance is placed on Sudarshan Sinha vs. Kuldeep Singh 133 (2006) DLT 183, wherein it was held that Section 111(h) r/w Sections 106, 107 and 105 of the Transfer of Property Act that when suit is not filed immediately on determination of the tenancy by efflux of time, it become mandatory to issue notice}, therefore, five years tenancy was expired on 31.08.1996 and thereafter, it became tenancy month by month. The notice clearly spells out that tenancy expired on 30.11.2010. It is a valid notice and;
(d) the defendant has also an objection that Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act speaks of 15 days notice but plaintiff's notice is of 21.10.2010 and it does not specify the period of 15 days but, as if, the suit property is to be handed over on 01.12.2010. The legal notice means to convey the intention to the tenant about termination of tenancy and from that point of view, Section 106 of CS No. 340/2011 Page 15 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati the Transfer of Property Act was enacted by the legislature by specifying the time. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 2002 was introduced by amending Subclause 3 of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act that fall of short of period would not make the notice invalid for termination of tenancy, whereas in the present case, the plaintiff granted time more than one month to the defendant. The notice does not suffer from any legal flaw.
4.6 The defendant through Shri R.K. Madan paid amount from time to time in the form of cheques and the plaintiff had received the amount against the receipts after notice dated 21.10.2010. The receipts issued in respect of cheques from 14.01.2011 to 15.09.2011, clearly mentions that acceptance of cheque is without prejudice to notice dated 21.10.2010 of termination of lease. It means the plaintiff was accepting the amount as use and occupation charges because the defendant has not vacated the suit property after notice. Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act of waiver of notice to quit comes into picture when there is express or implied consent to treat the subsistence of tenancy after notice. Whereas the plaintiff had issued the receipts against amount received as damages for illegal occupation with a specific narration in the receipt that the amount was being received without prejudice to the notice of quit. Therefore, there is nothing CS No. 340/2011 Page 16 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati on record to infer that there was waiver of notice. Moreover, in H. MEC India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lt. Col. Inder Maira 80 (1999) DLT 679 wherein it was held that a lessee continues in possession beyond the expiry of term by efflux of time, could either by holding over tenant or at sufferance.
5. The analysis carried and conclusion drawn in paragraph 4, above, are on the basis of pleading and documents of the parties, which clearly demonstrates that there was existing relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties, the rent was Rs. 3,750/ at the time when notice dated 21.10.2010 was sent to the defendant, which was served upon him through Shri R.K. Madan, who was tendering the amount by way of cheques, on behalf of the defendant, qua use and occupation charges after terminating the tenancy. On such admissions, the plaintiff is held entitled for decree of possession in his favour and against the defendant.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's suit for possession in respect of Flat No. 7, measuring 750 sq. feet, located on the first floor, bearing No. N252, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, comprising two bedrooms, two bathrooms, drawingcumdining hall, kitchen, store, open terrace with enclosed space and open space on the roof (more specifically shown in the site plan, now Ex. P1) is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the CS No. 340/2011 Page 17 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati defendant, while directing the defendant to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the suit property to the defendant in one month. The proportionate costs of suit for possession are also allowed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (INDER JEET SINGH)
th
on 12 Asvina, Saka 1934 Additional District Judge03,
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi / 04.10.2012
N
CS No. 340/2011 Page 18 of 18
Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati
CS No. 340/2011
04.10.2012
Appearance : Ms. Angeli Dayal, Advocate for plaintiff.
Proxy counsel for defendant.
Vide separate judgment, announced today, the plaintiff's suit for possession in respect of Flat No. 7, measuring 750 sq. feet, located on the first floor, bearing No. N252, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi, comprising two bedrooms, two bathrooms, drawingcumdining hall, kitchen, store, open terrace with enclosed space and open space on the roof (more specifically shown in the site plan, now Ex. P1) is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, while directing the defendant to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the suit property to the defendant in one month. The proportionate costs of suit for possession are also allowed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Pleadings are complete. The following issues emerged for determination from the pleadings and documents of the parties
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages / use and occupation charges / mesne profits of Rs. 19,03,319/ from 01.12.2010 upto 30.10.2011, against the defendant ? OPP CS No. 340/2011 Page 19 of 18 Deepak Gopal Chaphekar vs. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gulati
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future damages / use and occupation charges / mesne profits @ Rs. 1,50,000/ per month or at any rate, against the defendant ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentlite and future interest @ 18% per annum on the amounts of Issues No. 1 and 2, against the defendant ? OPP
4. Relief.
No other issue is proposed or pressed for.
List on 01.02.2013 for plaintiff's evidence, subject to providing copy of affidavit along with list of witnesses at least one month before the next date of hearing.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
Addl. District Judge03, South District,
N Saket/04.10.2012
CS No. 340/2011 Page 20 of 18