Delhi District Court
Sh. Lal Chand Yadav vs Cs Scj No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & ... on 22 June, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH CIVIL
JUDGE-01 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ NO. 611926/16
Date of Institution : 04.07.2014
Date of reservation of Judgment : 27.03.2021
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 22.06.2021
1. Sh. Lal Chand Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander Yadav
2. Sh. Maha Singh Yadav (now deceased)
through his LRs
(a) Smt. Premwati, widow of Late Sh. Maha Singh Yadav
(b) Sh. Mahesh Yadav, S/o Late Sh. Maha Singh Yadav
(c) Sh. Rajesh Yadav, S/o Late Sh. Maha Singh Yadav
All R/o WZ-251 A, Village Madipur
New Delhi-63.
(d) Smt. Rekha Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Maha Singh Yadav
and W/o Sh. Jitender Singh Bachhwal
R/o SCF-94, Sector -17, Huda Market
Faridabad, Haryana.
...........Plaintiffs
Vs.
CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 1/21
1. Sh. Mirajuddin @ Babu
S/o Late Sh. Noor Mohd.
R/o H.No.34, Pocket -B, 2nd Floor, Janta Flat
Opp. LIG Flats, Madipur, New Delhi
2. Mohd. Fazil
S/o Late Sh. Noor Mohd.
Resident of Okhla,
residential address not known hence notice be served
on C/o WZ-192, Village Madipur, New Delhi-63.
3. Mohd. Arif
S/o Late Sh. Noor Mohd.
R/o WZ-192, Village Madipur
New Delhi-63.
4. Ms. Rahisa Beguma
D/o Late Sh. Noor Mohd.
R/o H.No. 34, Pocket-B, First Floor, Janta Flat
Opp. L.I.G Flats, Madipur, New Delhi.
5. Ms.Shabnam
D/o Late Sh. Noor Mohd.
R/o WZ-178, Village Madipur
New Delhi-63.
................Defendants
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARRREARS OF
CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 2/21
RENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGEMENT
1. Brief facts as per plaint of plaintiff are that the plaintiffs are the owners of property no. WZ-192, Village Madipur, New Delhi-63. It is pleaded that Sh. Noor Mohammad was tenant in respect of one room, one covered verandah, one open courtyard, kitchen, bathroom and lavatory on the ground floor of abovementioned property for residential purposes exclusively (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'), who died long back leaving all the defendants as legal heirs. It is further pleaded that initially the suit property was given at a lower rate of rent but slowly and gradually and with the consent of plaintiffs and defendants, the present rate of rent has been increased to Rs. 4,000/- p.m w.e.f 01.1.2013 although the present prevalent market rate of rent is more than Rs. 6,000/- p.m excluding water and electricity charges. It is further pleaded that the defendants have not paid rent w.e.f 01.07.2013 despite repeated demands by the plaintiffs and defendants promised to pay the same. It is further pleaded that defendants no.2 to 4 are already living separately after the death of their father though all of them have falsely and illegally made the voter ID from this very address including defendants no.6 and 7 who are married daughters of defendant no.1.
2. It is further pleaded that defendants are liable to pay the CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 3/21 arrears of rent w.e.f 01.07.2013 @ Rs. 4,000/- p.m which comes to Rs. 48,000/- upto 30.06.2014 alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a i.e amounting to Rs. 2,640/- and legal notice charges of Rs. 2200/-. A legal notice dated 21.04.2014 was sent to the defendants thereby terminating their tenancy. Even after the service of said legal notice, defendants did not vacate the suit property and also did not pay the arrears of rent. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs.
3. By way of present suit, the plaintiff is seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Decree of possession of suit property i.e one room, one covered verandah, one open courtyard, kitchen, bathroom and lavatory on the ground floor of property no. WZ-192, Village Madipur, New Delhi.
(b) Decree of recovery of arrears of rent w.e.f 01.7.2013 to 30.6.2014 i.e Rs. 48,000/- alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a on each month's delay i.e Rs. 2,640/- and legal notice Rs. 2,200/-
and defendants be directed to pay rent @ Rs.4,000/- w.e.f 01.7.2014 onwards till handing over the vacant and physical possession of suit property.
(c) Decree regarding restraining the defendants from subletting or parting with possession or creating third party interest in respect of suit property i.e one room, one covered verandah, one open courtyard, kitchen, bathroom and lavatory on the ground floor of property bearing no. WZ-192, Village Madipur, New Delhi.
CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 4/21
(d) Costs of the suit.
4. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants wherein it is contended that no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have not come to this court with clean hands and have concealed material facts from this court. It is further contended that the rate of rent of the suit property is Rs. 200/- p.m excluding electricity charges and only the Ld. ARC has the jurisdiction to try the present suit. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with mala fide intention and ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the defendants.
5. In reply to the merits it is denied that the rent has been increased to Rs. 4,000/- p.m w.e.f 01.01.2013, although the present prevalent market rate of rent is more than Rs. 6,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges. It is submitted that the tenancy is about 50 years old. It is submitted that initially the rate of rent was Rs. 50/- p.m and thereafter the rate of rent was increased from time to time and at present the rate of rent is Rs. 200/- p.m excluding electricity charges. It is further submitted that the defendants are paying the rent regularly to the plaintiffs and have paid the rent upto 31.08.2014 so the question of promising to pay the rent by defendants does not arise. It is further submitted that the defendants have paid the rent uptil 31.08.2014 and no arrears of rent is due upon defendants. It is further submitted that the rate of rent is CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 5/21 Rs. 200/- p.m excluding electricity charges. It is further submitted that no notice has been received by the defendants so the question of reply of said notice does not arise. Prayer is made for dismissal of suit.
6. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff wherein the averments made in the plaint are reiterated and contentions raised in the W.S are denied.
7. ISSUES Vide Order dated 07.3.2015, following issues were framed :
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession as prayed for ? OPP (2) What is the rate of rent of the suit property ? Onus on parties (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.
48,000/- as arrears of rent alongwith interest at the rate of 12 % p.a and further charges of Rs. 4840/- as prayed for ? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP (5) Whether the suit is barred under Delhi Rent Control Act ? OPD (6) Relief.
CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 6/21
8. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE In order to prove his case plaintiff no.1, Sh. Lal Chand Yadav has examined himself as PW-1 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. PW 1/A and has relied upon the following documents :
I. Site plan Ex. PW 1/1 II. Legal notice Ex. PW 1/ 2III. Speed post receipts Ex. PW 1/ 3 to Ex. PW 1/9 IV. Returned speed post letters Ex. PW 1/10 to Ex. PW 1/14
Besides himself plaintiff has examined another witness namely Sh. Danveer Sharma, UDC, office of IInd A Sub-registrar, Punjabi Bagh, Nangloi, Delhi.
Vide Order dated 11.12.2015 of Ld. Predecessor of this court, the rent agreements were exhibited as Ex. PW 2/A to Ex. PW 2/C. Thereafter vide statement made by Ld. counsel for plaintiff PE was closed on 11.12.2015.
9. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE In order to prove his case defendants have examined following witnesses:
CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 7/21 (1) Sh. Irshad Ali as DW-1 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. DW 1/A (2) Mohd. Sharif as DW-2 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. DW 2/A (3) Sh. Mirajuddin as DW-3 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. DW 3/A (4) Sh. Salauddin as DW-4 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. DW 4/A (5) Ms. Rahisa Begum as DW-5 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. DW 5/A (6) Ms. Shabnam as DW-6 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. DW 6/A (7) Mohd. Fazil as DW-8 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. DW 8/A No witness as DW-7 has been examined.
10. It is argued by the counsel for plaintiffs in his written statement that Sh Noor Mohd was tenant in the suit property. That the rent of suit property was increased from time to time and current rate of rent is Rs 4,000 p.m w.e.f 01.01.2013 excluding water and electricity charges although the prevalent rate of rent is Rs 6,000/- pm. That legal notice dated 21.04.2014 was sent to the defendants terminating their tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. That the defendants refused to accept the legal notice. It was further argued CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 8/21 that PW-2 Sh. Danveer Sharna proved the rent agreements executed in May 2012, October 2013 and May 2014. It was further argued that DW-1 in his cross-examination could not prove the rate of rent. It was further argued that DW-4 admitted in his cross-examination that he had not read his own affidavit. It was further argued that legal notice sent to defendants was refused by the defendants which raises a presumption under sec 114 (f) of Indian Evidence Act. In support of his arguments the counsel has relied upon following cases :
a) AIR 1981 SC 1284
b) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Meenakshi Khosla decided by Delhi High Court in RFA No. 218/2012
c) Kalu Ram vs Sita Ram
d) Jhabbumal Jang Bahadur vs Nanakchand 1981, decided by Delhi High Court in 1981 RLR
e) 1980 RLR
11. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendants in their written submissions has argued that the plaintiff has not proved that the rate of rent is beyond Rs 200 p.m. It was further argued that DW- 1 to DW-8 has established that the rate of rent of the suit premises is Rs 200 pm and that rent is paid upto August, 2014. It was further argued that the onus to prove first four issues were upon plaintiff.
12. I have read the arguments of both the parties, before giving issue wise findings lets discuss some law on the point of onus CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 9/21 of proof:
Indian Evidence Act Section 103
103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.- The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
In Hira Singh vs Delhi Wakf Board, 173 (2010) DLT 337, it was held that "It is a golden rule of evidence that the plaintiff must establish his own case. Section 101 of the Evidence Act clearly stipulates this."
In Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Air India Ltd, 153 (2008) DLT 228 (DB), it was held that "A plain reading of the above provisions shows clearly that in case the respondent desired the Court to believe that in the contract in question, there exists a clause limiting its liability to US $ 20 per kilogram, then it was for the respondent/defendant to prove this fact. The method of proving of facts is covered by Chapters IV, V and VI of the Indian Evidence Act. In this context, reference may also be had to the Latin maxim, Ei incumbit prabatio qui dicit, non qui negat - the onus of proof lies on him who affirms and not upon him who denies the existence of any fact."
In Punjab and Sind Bank vs Kunshiv Profiles Co. Ltd & Ors, 159 (2009) DLT 523 it was held that "It is well settled that in CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 10/21 every suit the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove the averments made in his plaint, unless the same are admitted by the defendant."
In Facebook India Online Services Pvt Ltd vs Mufty Aijas Arshad Qasmi, 204 (2013) DLT 86 it was held that "Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines `burden of proof' and clearly provides that the party initiating the law suit based on facts asserted has the burden to prove that those facts exist. Thus, the Evidence Act has clearly stated that the burden to prove a fact always lies upon the party who asserts it. Until such burden is met, the other party is not required to prove his case. The court must determine whether the burden has been satisfied. The court must determine the burden has been met before proceeding. The other party's perceived weakness cannot be a basis to continue the Suit."
In Rangammal vs Kuppuswami and anr, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) it was held that "Since the High Court has misplaced burden of proof, it clearly vitiated its own judgments as also of the courts below since it is well established dictum of the Evidence Act that misplacing burden of proof would vitiate judgment. It is also equally and undoubtedly true that the burden of proof may not be of much consequence after both the parties lay evidence, but while appreciating the question of burden of proof, misplacing of burden of proof on a particular party and recording findings in a particular way definitely vitiates the judgment as it has happened in the instant matter. This position stands reinforced by several authorities CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 11/21 including the one delivered in the case of Koppula Koteshwara Rao vs. Koppula Hemant Rao, 2002 AIHC 4950 (AP)."
13. From the above authorities, it is clear that primary burden to prove its case always lies upon the plaintiff. When such burden is discharged then burden arises upon defendant to disprove the facts. Plaintiff cannot directly rely upon the loopholes in the case of defendant without first establishing the facts.
ISSUE NO 2 What is the rate of rent of the suit property ? Onus on parties and ISSUE NO 5 Whether the suit is barred under Delhi Rent Control Act ? OPD
14. We will first decide issue no 2 and 5, admittedly there is no written contract between the parties. The primary burden to prove the factum of rent is upon plaintiff in view of above discussion.
15. Admittedly, there is no rent agreement with the defendants. PW-1 in order to prove his case has relied upon site plan, legal notice, speed post receipts and returned speed post letters. Apart from that, no other material or document has been brought on record by the plaintiff. PW-1 stated that suit premises was given on rent to late Sh. Noor Mohammad. It was further stated that initially CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 12/21 the rate of rent was lower but with mutual consent it was raised from time to time and current rate of rent was Rs 4000/- pm w.e.f. 01.01.2013. In cross-examination of PW-1, he stated that rent was being received in cash by PW-1. He further stated that Rs 2000/- pm rent was taken from defendant somewhere in the year 2000, thereafter the rent was increased with mutual consent. PW-1 voluntarily stated during cross examination that the rent was increased to Rs 3000/- from Rs 2000/- in the year 2007 and thereafter to Rs 4000/- w.e.f. January, 2013 as per mutual oral agreement.
16. Even if for the sake of argument, we assume that the rate of rent was actually Rs 2000/- pm in the year still the story of plaintiff regarding rate of rent being Rs 4000/- wef January, 2013 fails. As the tenant will be statutory tenant in the year 2000 in view of Sec 3(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act as rate of rent being less than Rs 3500/- per month. The rent of the suit premises cannot be increased more than 10% for every three years as per sec 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act and without giving notice of increase to tenant as per section 8 of Delhi Rent Control Act. Before going further lets see what these provisions provide:
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
3. Act not to apply to certain premises.--Nothing in this Act shall apply:--
(c) to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 13/21 rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees; or 6-A. Revision of rent.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the standard rent, or, where no standard rent is fixed under the provisions of this Act in respect of any premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, may be increased by ten per cent every three years.
8. Notice of increase of rent.--(1) Where a landlord wishes to increase the rent of any premises, he shall give the tenant notice of his intention to make the increase and in so far as such increase is lawful under this Act, it shall be due and recoverable in respect of the period of the tenancy after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given.
(2) Every notice under sub-section (1) shall be in writing signed by or on behalf of the landlord and given in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882).
17. In the present it is not pleaded by plaintiff that any notice as envisaged under section 8 of DRC Act was given to defendants. It is no where pleaded that rent was increased in view of any written agreement between the parties. The story of rent increased via mutual consent of parties is not backed by any document or material. Further, the rent claimed is more than what is allowed as per Section 6A of DRC Act.
CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 14/21
18. Assuming rent was Rs 2000/- pm in the year 2000, then rent as on the date of institution of the suit will be as follows :
S.No. Year Rate of Rent (Per Month) 1. 2000 Rs. 2000 2. 2003 Rs. 2200 3. 2006 Rs. 2420 4. 2009 Rs. 2662 5. 2012 Rs. 2928.20 6. 2015 Rs. 3221.02
Rent as on Date of institution of suit i.e. 04.07.2014 would be Rs 2928.20 Above figures is arrived at when three years period is calculated from Jan 2000. Even if we take most favorable situation to plaintiff i.e. calculating rent increase period starting from 2001, still the following figures arrive:
S.No. Year Rate of Rent (Per Month) 1. 2000 Rs. 2000 2. 2001 Rs. 2200 3. 2004 Rs. 2420 4. 2007 Rs. 2662 5. 2010 Rs. 2928.20 6. 2013 Rs. 3221.02
Rent as on Date of institution of suit i.e. 04.07.2014 would be Rs 3221.02 CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 15/21
19. From the above discussion, it is clear that, in any case, the rate of rent is coming out to be less than Rs 3500/- pm as on the date of institution of the suit even if we assume the rate of rent was Rs 2000/- in the year 2000. In the present case, plaintiff has not proved that rate of rent was Rs 2000/- pm in the year 2000. Moreover, no notice of increase as per section 8 of DRC Act was given to defendants. The wordings of section 8 of DRC Act are mandatory in nature as it uses the word "shall". Hence, it was incumbent upon the landlord to increase the rent, if any, as per law.
20. DW-1 to DW-8 have taken the consistent stand that the tenancy is about 50 years old and initially the rate of rent was Rs 50/- pm and thereafter, the rate of rent was increased from time to time and at present the rate of rent is Rs 200/- pm. It was also stated by them they have paid the rent up till 31.08.2014. They denied rate of rent being Rs 4000/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2013.
21. The argument of counsel for plaintiff that not replying the legal notice Ex PW1/2 will amount to admission of rent of Rs 4000/- has no merit. As already observed above, the tenants in the present case are statutory tenants, they can be evicted only through due legal procedure. Their tenancy cannot be terminated ordinarily through legal notice as per section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, merely not replying the legal notice will not amount to admission of rate of rent on the part of defendants. In Harcharan CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 16/21 Singh vs Smt. Shivrani And Ors. Decided on 20 February, 1981, AIR 1981 SC 1284, Justice Tulzapurkar speaking for himself held that "It would, therefore, be reasonable to hold that when service is effected by refusal of a postal communication the addressee must be imputed, with the knowledge of the contents thereof and in our view, this follows upon the presumptions that are raised under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act." The facts of the case in Harcharan Singh are different from the facts in the present case. In Harcharan Singh case the matter was related to UP Rent and Eviction Act and after refusal of notice the postman's evidence was also conducted. Even if we impute the knowledge of notice served upon defendants still the plaintiffs have to prove the rate of rent, which has not been done so in the present case. It seems that plaintiffs are relying more on the loopholes of the defendants case rather than standing on their own case. PW-2 was summoned in the present case on behalf of plaintiffs probably to prove the current rate of rent prevailing in that area. In view of rent arguments brought by PW-2, this court cannot put any arbitrary figure to be the rate of rent of suit premises.
22. In conclusion, this court is unable to find the accurate rate of interest due to lack of evidence being led on this issue. However, from the admission of defendants, it can be said that rate of rent was at least Rs 200/- pm immediately before the date of institution of the present suit. Moreover, it can also be safely said CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 17/21 that the rate of rent was less than Rs 3500/- even on the assumption of PW-1's statement that rate of rent was Rs 2000/- pm in the year 2000. Thus, as per section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act this court has no jurisdiction over matters in the exclusive domain of Rent Controller. So, issue no 5 is decided in favour of defendants.23.
ISSUE NO 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession as prayed for ? OPP
23. In view of the above observations and findings, that this court has no jurisdiction for eviction of tenant due to bar of Sec 3(c) and Sec 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act. This issue is also decided in favour of defendants as this court has no jurisdiction for eviction of defendants.
ISSUE NO. 3Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs 48,000/- as arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum and further charges of Rs 4840 as prayed for ? OPP
24. As observed above, the rate of rent of the property is at least Rs 200/- pm as admitted by defendants. DW-3 in his cross- examination has stated that after the death of my father (original CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 18/21 tenant) I used to pay the rent of premises and that he has not paid the rent since filing of present suit. DW-4 in his cross-examination stated that his mother used to pay the rent to the plaintiff till she remained alive and he is paying the rent of the suit premises since he is living in the house in question. DW-4 further stated that rent of Rs 50/- pm was increased by Rs 10/- pm from time to time but he cannot tell after how many years the rate was enhanced and he does not remember the month and year when it was fixed to Rs 200/- pm. DW-5, daughter of late Noor Mohd, stated in her cross-examination that at present the prevalent market rate of rent of the suit property is Rs 4,000/- to Rs 5,000/- per month.
25. In view of the above and since there is no written document or concrete proof of rate of rent, this court awards admitted rate of rent ie. Rs 200/- pm since filing of this suit till the date of the decree along with interest @ 6% per annum to the plaintiff. Defendants are directed to continue to pay the admitted rate of rent after date of decree to the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
26. In the present case, the defendants have not disputed the factum of plaintiffs being the landlords of the defendants in the written statement. Defendants not even disputed the factum of CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 19/21 property given on rent by father of plaintiffs i.e. late Sh. Ram Chander to late Sh. Noor Mohd.
27. Sec 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, gives right to the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of sub letting of property without the consent of landlord. Vide order dated 01.11.2014 defendants were restrained from creating third party interest in the property.
28. Keeping in view the above provision of law that statutory tenants cannot sublet the premises without consent of landlord. The defendants are restrained from creating third party interest in the suit propety i.e. one room, one covered verandah, one open courtyard, kitchen, bathroom and lavatory on the ground floor of property No. WZ-192, Village Madipur, New Delhi without the consent of the landlords.
29. RELIEFS Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of defendants and plaintiffs are at liberty to approach appropriate forum for eviction of defendants.
Issue no. 2 is decided to the extent that rate of rent of suit premises is at least Rs 200 p.m. immediately before the filing of the suit.
Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of plaintiffs to the extent that admitted rate of rent ie. Rs 200/- pm since filing of this suit till the date of the decree along with interest @ 6% per annum be given CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 20/21 to plaintiff. Defendants are directed to continue to pay the admitted rate of rent after date of decree to the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 4 is also decided in favour of plaintiffs. The defendants are restrained from creating third party interest in the suit propety i.e. one room, one covered verandah, one open courtyard, kitchen, bathroom and lavatory on the ground floor of property No. WZ-192, Village Madipur, New Delhi without the consent of the landlords.
Issue no. 5 is decided in favour of defendants as rate of rent is assessed to be less than Rs 3500/- pm and hence the reliefs within exclusive domain of ld. Rent Controller cannot be decided by this court.
Costs of the suit are awarded in favour of the plaintiffs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after Record Room.
ANKIT Digitally signed by
Pronounced through Cisco Webex ANKIT KARAN SINGH
today i.e on 22.06.2021 KARAN Date: 2021.06.22
SINGH 17:32:32 +05'30'
(Ankit Karan Singh)
Civil Judge-01(West)/Delhi
CS SCJ No. 611926/16 Lal Chand Yadav & Anrs. V Shamim & Ors. 21/21