Delhi District Court
Sh.Virender Kumar Gupta vs Sh.C.P.Sharma on 20 January, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ADJ: 07
CENTRAL:ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
CS NO:145/06
ID NO: 0240962192006
SH.VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA
S/o Late Dr. W. Gupta
R/o 53, Panch Kuin Road,
New Delhi. .....Plaintiff
VS.
SH.C.P.SHARMA
S/o Sh.J.C.Sharma
R/o 21A, Queens Apartment,
Bandra Mumabi50
IInd Address
C503, Lakeview Cooperative
Group Housing Society,
Sunder Vihar, New Delhi. ....Defendant
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY OF
ARREARS OF RENT AND DAMAGES / MESNE PROFITS
Date of Institution : 13.10.2006
Date of Final hearing : 20.01.2011
Date of Judgment : 20.01.2011
JUDGMENT
1. This suit has been filed by plaintiff landlord against the defendant tenant for possession of tenanted property i.e. flat no. C503, Lake view @contd.
2Cooperative Housing Society, Sunder Vihar , Delhi consisting of three bed rooms with attached bath kitchen, one servant room with attached bathroom. Recovery of Rs.2,92,200/ with interest @18% and with arrears of rent / damages is also sought apart from future damages @Rs.26,400/ per month excluding Rs.1000/ per month maintenance w.e.f. 1.10.2006 till actual vacation of property.
2. Case of the plaintiff as per plaint is that the suit property was rented out to the defendant for a period of three years @Rs.6,600/ per month excluding electricity charges and maintenance charges vide lease deed dated 4.6.2002.Even though this lease was submitted for registration on 10.6.02 but plaintiff was informed that it was not traceable at their office even though receipt no. 3636 was issued. The tenancy period of two years expired on 3.6.04 and thereafter tenancy was treated on month to month th basis. Advance rent was agreed to be paid by 5 of each month and Rs.35,000/ cash was interest free security. Since defendant was not regular in paying the month to month charges, plaintiff issued letter dated @contd.
32.4.2004 asking defendant to vacate the premises on 3.6.04. Defendant vide reply dated 14.5.04 assured the plaintiff that he will vacate the flat on or before November'2004 , but he failed to vacate the rented premises even after November'2004. He had sent a letter dated 6.4.05 to plaintiff requesting him to allow the occupation of the flat up to November'2005 citing some personal problems and he assured that he will clear the dues by May'2005. Subsequently plaintiff served notice dated 19.11.2005 upon defendant terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 31.12.2005 asking the defendant to vacate the premises on 1.1.06. This notice was replied by the defendant on 16.1.2006 through his advocate.
3. It is further case of the plaintiff that he had attended a meeting with the defendant at Janpath Hotel on 6.10.2005 . On that day defendant pretended to be in hurry of reaching the Airport and he made the plaintiff sign two blank cash vouchers of Rs.40,000/ each. One of the vouchers was without date while the other was dated 6.10.2005. First voucher of Rs.40,000/ was towards cash rent paid by defendant to the plaintiff on @contd.
427.4.05. Plaintiff appended his signature under good faith and bonafide. He was paid Rs.43,000/ by the defendant on 6.10.2005 out of outstanding arrears of Rs.73,700/. He wrote letter dated 23.10.2005 to the defendant requesting him to fill the blank vouchers and for supplying to him he photocopy of the vouchers. As per plaint after expiry of the lease dated 3.6.07, plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of damages of Rs.26,400/ which is four time the admitted rent between the parties as per terms contained in the deed. Plaintiff is also entitled to receive Rs.45,600/ as arrears as on December'2005 apart from 2,46,600/ as mesne profit between 1.1.06 and 30.9.06 @Rs.27,400/ per moth including Rs.1000/ per month maintenance i.e. total arrears of RS.2,92,200/. In this backdrop, suit in hand was filed.
4. Upon service of summons of the suit, it was contested by the defendant by filing the detailed written statement. Dismissal of the suit was prayed on the plea that plaintiff has suppressed the material facts, As per WS, plaintiff entered into agreement to sell of the suit flat with the defendant @contd.
5for a sum of Rs.30 lacs out of which Rs.40,000/ was received as earnest money/. Sale deed was agreed to be executed on 31.1.2006. Plaintiff agreed to not to claim rent from October '2004. On merits defendant did not deny that plaintiff is owner of the property and that it was taken on rent by him as mentioned in the plaint. Facturm of submissions of lease deed with sub registrar is also not denied. He however, denied that he was not paying rent in time . He denied receipt of plaintiff notice dated 2/4/04 requiring him to vacate the property on 3.6.06. Other communications exchange between the parties are admitted. It is however, pleaded that plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant under a bonafide necessity after he received Rs.40,000/ on 6.10.2005 apart from waiver of rent from October'2004 onwards . He, however, denied receipt of plaintiff's letter dated 23.10.2005. He denied that he ever met plaintiff at Janpath or paid Rs.40,000/ as arrears of rent or obtained his signatures on two blank cash vouchers on 6.102005. Defendant stated that he is ready to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.29.60 lacs for getting the sale deed @contd.
6registered. He prayed for dismissal of the suit for it being without cause of action. He denied that plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.27,400/ per month from him,
5. Separate replication was filed wherein plaintiff reiterated his pleaded caseand denied the contention of the defendant . Plaintiff denied executing any Agreement for Sale qua the suit property . It is pleaded that plaintiff 's blank signed vouchers dated 6.10.2005 were illegally used by the defendant and they were forged with ulterior motive.
6. Upon completion of pleadings following issues were identified by this Court on 6.10.2009.
ISSUES
7.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of tenanted suit property i.e. Flat No.C503, Lake View Coop. Group Housing Society, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi consisting of 3 bed rooms with attached bathroom which attached both drawing and dining , kitchen and one servant bedroom with attached bathroom as prayed? (OPP)
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for future damages @Rs.26,400/ per month plus Rs.1000/ towards maintenance @contd.
7w.e.f. 1.10.2006 till the time of vacation of the suit premises apart from interest @18% per annum. (OPP)
3. Relief
8. An additional issue was also framed on 30.11.2009. ADDITIONAL ISSUE Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.2,92,200/ qua arrears of rent and damages apart from interest @ 18% pendetilite till date of realisation. (OPP)
9. During the course of trial , on plaintiff's application, LD. Predecessor passed an order on application U/O 39 R10 CPC directing the defendant to pay Rs.1.52 lacs to the plaintiff up to February'2007 and Rs.7000/ per month from March'2007 to January'2008 apart from paying Rs.7,600/ per month to the plaintiff during the course of trial. This order was complied by the defendant and is being complied till date. However, after passing of this order dated 13.2.2008, defendant has moved an application seeking enlargement of one month time to clear the arrears but the request was declined by Ld. Predecessor and defendant's defence was struck off for @contd.
8non compliance of order within time vide order dated 20.5.08. This order was challenged by defendant before Hon'ble High Court. Vide order dated 18.7.08 the impugned order was set aside and defendant was allowed another 4 weeks to comply the order. Subsequently on one more occasion defence of the defendant was struck off for non payment of the regular occupation charge as per order on Order 39 R 10 CPC but the order was set aside subject to cost by Hon'ble High Court.
10.In support of his case plaintiff examined himself as PW1 apart from examining PW2 Sh. Krishan Kumar and PW3 Sh. L.Narayan. On the contrary defendant examined himself as DW1.
11.I have heard arguments of LD. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. S.S.Katyal advocate for plaintiff and LD. Counsel for defendant Sh. Kamal Chaudhary. I have also carefully perused the entire judicial file.
12.In his deposition as PW1vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A, plaintiff deposed on the lines of the plaint . He has exhibited the carbon copy of the letter dated 2.4.2004 as Ex.PW1/1 , postal receipt as Ex. PW1/2, AD card as @contd.
9Ex.PW1/3, letter dated 14/5/2004 as Ex PW1/4, letter dated 6.4.05 as Ex. PW1/5, legal notice dated 19.11.2005 as Ex. PW1/6, the postal receipt as Ex. PW1/7, the UPC as Ex. PW1/8, AD card of service of notice as Ex. PW1/9, reply dated 16.1.2006 to legal notice as Ex. PW1/10, copy of letter dated 23.10.05 as Ex. PW1/11, postal receipt as Ex. PW1/12, AD card of service by speed post of letter dated 23.10.2005 as Ex. PW1/13, Copy receipt No. 363 dated 10.6.2002 alongwith copy of lease deed dated 4.6.2002 which have been mentioned as Ex. PX in the affidavit, as mark X (colly). Copy of letter dated 6.12.2005 , sent by postal department alongwith proof of delivery as Ex. PW1/14 (colly) Voucher dated 6.10.2005 as mark D, letter dated 18.9.2006 as Ex. PW1/15 which was received by Sub Registrar Office on 18.9.06, reply dated 22.9.2006 of Sub Registrar as Ex. PW1/16, certified copy of order dated 18.12.2008 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Endlaw as Ex. PW1/17 , certified copy of order dated 24.2.2009 as Ex. PW1/18, certified copy of order dated 10.7.09 as Ex.PW1/19.
@contd.
10
13.In his cross examination he conceded that he has not placed any site plan on record. He denied that no maintenance charge was leviable . He accepted lease deed Mark X to be unregistered document, He accepted that lease dated on 4.6.02 was never renewed. He denied to have ever expressed his intention to sell the house to the defendant or entered in to agreement for sell with him. He accepted the receiving of Rs.35,000/ as security which is still lying with him. He denied filling the cash voucher dated 6.10.05 so as to make them an agreement for sale.
14.PW2 is Krishan Kumar LDC from Sub Registrar Office. He accepted that the lease deed 4.6.02 was submitted for registration with Sub Registrar Office under receipt no. 363, but it was not registered. He exhibited the copy of lease deed as Ex.PW2/1, the copy of letter written by plaintiff as EX.PW2/2.
@contd.
11
15.PW3 is Sh. L.Narain, Peon from the Cooperative Society. As per him maintenance charges of the flat is Rs.1200/ per month w.e.f. 1.7.09 while earlier it was RS.1000/ per month up to 30.06.09. Plaintiff is paying up to day maintenance charges.
16.Defendant has examined himself as DW1, he has deposed on the lines of his WS vide affidavit Ex.DW1/A . He has exhibited on record copy of voucher dated 6.10.2005 as Ex.DW1/1.
17.In his cross examination , he accepted execution of lease deed between the parties on 4.6.02 and its submissions with office of Sub Registrar. He was unaware if it could be registered or not . He accepted that the lease was meant for two years which was to expire on 3.6.04 and no further lease deed was executed between the parties. He accepted his address written on letter Ex.PW1/1 as correct. He accepted his signature on letter Ex.PW1/4 whereby he undertook to vacate the premises by November'2004. He however, denied executing letter Ex.PW1/5. However, in his written statement in para 11 , he concedes writing letter Ex.DW1/5 @contd.
12dated 6.4.05, when he assured to vacate the flat as soon as possible apart from clearing the arrears. He even denied the admission qua issuance of letter dated 14.5.04 ex.PW1/4 and 6.4.05 ex.PW1/5 . He accepted the submission of both these documents in para 11 of WS. He conceded that he never deposited maintenance charge with the society but claimed to have paid it to the plaintiff . He denied that voucher dated 6.10.2005 was signed blank by the plaintiff in good faith or that Rs.40,000/ paid by him to the plaintiff towards arrears of rent through voucher dated 6.10.05. He denied that voucher PW1/1 having entries A1 to A3 were filled by him by fabricating a blank signed voucher or that he committed cheating and fraud. He conceded to have filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of this voucher before original side of Hon'ble High Court . He also accepted that Hon'ble High Court dated 18.12.2008 directed him to deposit the claimed balance consideration amount with the court but that order was not complied by him. He conceded to have challenged that order before Hon'ble Division Bench but he was not granted any relief and finally his suit @contd.
13was dismissed on 10.7.09. Even his appeal against the dismissal order was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court on 27.11.2009.
18.Now I shall dispose of individual issues framed in this case. ISSUE NO.1
19.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of tenanted suit property i.e. Flat No.C503, Lake View Coop. Group Housing Society, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi consisting of 3 bed rooms with attached bathroom which attached both drawing and dining , kitchen and one servant bedroom with attached bathroom as prayed? (OPP)
20.As far as this issue is concerned it is admitted case of both the parties that this suit flat is owned by plaintiff . Also admittedly plaintiff leased it to the defendant vide a deed dated 4.6.02 @6,600/ per month excluding electricity and maintenance charges. Admittedly the lease deed Ex.PW2/1 was meant for two years but was still not got registered under Section 17 of The Registration Act & consequently this lease shall be considered to st be a month to month lease which starts from 1 day of each calender month and ends on the last day of the month. Admittedly no letters / @contd.
14notice of termination of lease was issued by the plaintiff during the first two years of the tenancy. The first communication issued to the defendant tenant was plaintiff's personal letter dated 2.4.04 intimating him that the lease period is going to end on 3.6.04 and that defendant should hand over the possession of the flat on this date. Defendant has denied receipt of this letter not only in the pleadings but also during the admission denial and in his cross examination as well . However, record shows that this letter was sent through registered post receipt Ex.PW1/2 apart from having duly served AD card Ex.PW1/3. Ld. Counsel for defendant conceded that address written in this letter as well as on AD card belongs to his client. Once the duly signed AD card is received back on a registered post on correctly address, presumption of service can be drawn. Plain denial of service is of no aid to the party denying the same.
21.In case titled " Industrial Medical Engineers Vs. Anil Nijhawan" 110 (2004) DLT 581, while observing on the authenticity of service made by Registered Post Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed, @contd.
15
" A postman is an independent agency whose report should be ordinarily accepted no cogent reason has been disclosed before me to doubt ..... the initial/ signature on the AD Card .... it should not be forgotten that a postman in the area normally has full knowledge of the identity of the addressees".
22.Further more , In case titled Pooja Aggarwal Vs. Sakata INX (India Ltd.) 154 (2008) DLT 237 while dealing with almost identical matter while disposing an application under Order 12 rule 6 CPC wherein defendant tenant plainly denied the receipt of notice of termination of tenancy, Hon'ble High Court ruled that :
"In the instance case, the admission regarding relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute . The rate of rent is above Rs.3,500/. The service of notice has been amply shown by the plaintiff by placing the documents on record and the denial by the defendant is a sham and false and the Court can always disregard such sham and false denials."
23.Thereafter defendant did not vacate the premises on or after 3.6.04 but wrote a letter dated 14.5.04 to the plaintiff Ex.PW1/4. In this letter he conceded that the lease would expire on 3.6.04 but he assured the plaintiff @contd.
16of vacating the suit flat in November'2004 since he was going abroad. But defendant did not vacate the premises despite the assurance. Later on he gave another handwritten letter to the plaintiff on 6.4.05 Ex.PW1/5 assuring him to vacate the suit flat as early as possible apart from referring to request made by him to the plaintiff to allow him to stay up to November'2005. Despite these repeated assurances, defendant did not vacate the premises. Meanwhile while making part payment to the plaintiff , defendant got two cash vouchers signed from the plaintiff . As per plaintiff , they were supposed to only acknowledge receipt of Rs.80,000/ towards arrears of rent.
24.However, as per defendant one voucher was meant to acknowledge nd payment of arrears rent of Rs.40,000/ while the 2 was basically an agreement to sell whereby plaintiff agreed to sell the suit flat to him for Rs.30 lacs and Rs.40,000/ was the earnest money. This story of the defendant has already fallen flat in the original side of the Hon'ble High @contd.
17Court as well as an appeal preferred by him before Hon'ble Division Bench. As such this Court needs not ponder or dwell much in to it.
25.Finally when the suit flat was not vacated by the defendant , as a matter of abundant precaution plaintiff issued a proper legal notice 19.11.2005 Ex.PW1/6 thereby terminating the tenancy from 31/12/2005 onwards and requiring the defendant to vacate the premises apart from seeking damages from 1.1.2006. This notice was admittedly received by the defendant and was responded vide reply dated 16.1.2006 Ex.PW1/10.
26.It is evident from the above facts and is also admitted by both the Ld. Counsels that the tenancy in hand stands terminated on 31.12.2005. Once the tenancy admittedly terminated , defendant has no right or authority to remain in possession of the tenanted suit flat. As such plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit flat. Issue stands answered accordingly.
@contd.
18ISSUE NO.2 & ADDITIONAL ISSUE
27.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for future damages @Rs.26,400/ per month plus Rs.1000/ towards maintenance w.e.f. 1.10.2006 till the time of vacation of the suit premises apart from interest @18% per annum. (OPP) ADDITIONAL ISSUE Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.2,92,200/ qua arrears of rent and damages apart from interest @ 18% pendetilite till date of realisation. (OPP)
28.In the suit in hand plaintiff has claimed damage of Rs.26,400/ per month apart from Rs.1000/ per month for maintenance w.e.f. 1.10.2006. The tenancy, as concluded supra, was terminated on 31.12.2005. The termination notice Ex.PW1/6 contains a mention that as per lease deed dated 4.6.02 , plaintiff landlord is entitled to damages @ 4 times the prevailing rent. The last admitted rent was Rs.6,600/ and for this reason its four times i.e. Rs.26,400/ is being claimed as damages. This plea has been vehemently opposed by Ld. Counsel for defendant on the plea that since the lease in question was never got registered U/s 17 of @contd.
19Registration Act, by virtue of Section 49 of The Act it can not be either received in evidence nor looked upon qua the transaction concerning the property. It is also argued that after the expiry of the said lease, it was never renewed either in writing or orally. At this juncture LD. Counsel for plaintiff submits that his claim of 4 times damage should be allowed because defendant has accepted in his cross examination that there was a clause in the aforesaid lease deed which provides so.
29.Section 49 of Registration Act runs as under: Section 49, Effect of nonregistration of documents required to be registered No document required by section 27 {or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
@contd.20
30.Plain reading of this provision shows that unregistered document which is compulsorily registrable can not be received in evidence. Seeking implementation of clauses of unregistered lease deed is specifically barred by this statutory provision. Mere admission of acceptance of simple clause in the unregistered document can not over rite the intent of the Parliament express through Section 49 of the Registration Act. As such I have no hesitation in concluding that plaintiff is not entitled to 4 times of the last rent paid, as a matter of right.
31.However, this does not ipso facto means that plaintiff is not entitled to any damages whatsoever. It is conceded by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that no separate documentary or oral evidence was led by him to substantiate the escalated rental value of the suit namely by producing similar kind of lease deed at higher rentals. Still it is a settled legal proposition that this Court can always take judicial notice of the fact that there is universal escalation in rental value of the property.
@contd.
21
32.In case titled Vinod Khanna vs. Bakshi Sachdeva AIR 1996 Delhi 32 Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with a case where no specific evidence was brought qua current rental which the property could fetch, observed that:
" However, it is a well known fact that the amount of rent for various properties in and around Delhi has been rising staggeringly and we can not see why such judicial notice could not be taken of the fact about such increase of rents in the premises in and around Delhi which is a city of growing importance being the capital of the country which is a matter of public history. "
In case titled D.C.Oswal vs, V.K.Subbiah AIR 1992 SC 184 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"we would , however, like to add that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that rental has escalated everywhere and appropriate rent in the present case should be raised. . . . . "
In case titled M.R. SAHINI VS. DORIS RANDHAWA AIR 2008 Delhi 110, Hon'ble High Court while upholding the order of LD. Trial Court in assessing the mesne profit observed :
" I note that in relation to determination of mesne profit, there is always some element of guess work. What has to be ensured is that the finding has not to be conjecture of the court . As long as there is some evidence to sustain the same, the finding can not be faulted."
@contd.
22
33.Considering the facts available on record and in the light of aforesaid case laws , it is evident that this lease was started in the year 2002 @Rs.6600/ per month. Admittedly till termination of this lease on 31.12.2005, plaintiff did not seek or demand enhancement of rent from the defendant . However, since more than 8 years have passed since when the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the year 2002, plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit at enhanced rate.
34.In the given scenario , I am of the considered view that the mesne profit for the year 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2006 shall be @Rs.7,600/ per month , for the year 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 shall be @Rs.8,600/ per month, for the year 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 shall be @Rs.9,600/ per month, for the year 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 shall be @Rs.10,600/ per month and for the year 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 shall be @Rs.11,600/ per month and from 1.1.11 to till the date of vacation it shall be @Rs.12,600/ per month. Plaintiff shall be entitled to enhanced damages in future in the same fashion @Rs.1000/ per year increase in case he is not handed over the vacant @contd.
23possession of the suit flat in this calender year. This shall exclude maintenance charges payable to the society where the suit flat is located. Defendant shall pay Rs.1000/ per month towards maintenance for 1.1.2006 to 30.6.2009. Rs.1200/ per month shall be payable for 1.07.09 to 31.10.2010 and Rs.1400/ per month from 1.11.2010 onwards till actual vacation. The payments made by defendant tenant in compliance of Under order 39 Rule 10 CPC shall be adjusted accordingly.
35.As far as interest is concerned, plaintiff claims interest @18% which appears to be on the higher side. In the facts and circumstances, plaintiff is granted interest @14% per annum . Issue stands disposed of accordingly.
36.It is conceded by Ld Counsel for plaintiff that arrears of rent including maintenance for the period August'04 to December'05 already stands paid. The later part of this issue already stands covered in the above issue. This issue is answered accordingly.
@contd.
24
37.Relief In view of above discussion and decision on above issues, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed with cost. Let a decree of possession of be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with direction to vacate the suit flat and hand over the vacant possession of the suit flat i.e. flat no. C 503, Lake view Cooperative Housing Society, Sunder Vihar , Delhi consisting of three bed rooms with attached bath kitchen, one servant bed room with attached bathroom. decreed with cost.
38.Decree of the mesne profit for the year 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2006 @Rs.7,600/ per month, for the year 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 @Rs.8,600/ per month, for the year 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 @Rs.9,600/ per month, for the year 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 @Rs.10,600/ per month and for the year 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 @Rs.11,600/ per month and from 1.1.11 to till the date of vacation @Rs.12,600/ per month be prepared accordingly with interest @14% per annum pendentilite till the date of actual realisaion. Decree for Rs.1000/ per month towards @contd.
25maintenance for 1.1.2006 to 30.6.2009, Rs.1200/ per month for 1.07.09 to 31.10.2010 and Rs.1400/ per month from 1.11.2010 onwards till actual vacation be also prepared . Plaintiff shall be entitled to enhanced damages in future in the same fashion @Rs.1000/ per year increase in case he is not handed over the vacant possession of the suit flat in this calender year.
39. This shall exclude maintenance charges payable to the society where the suit flat is located. The payments made by defendant tenant in compliance of Under order 39 Rule 10 CPC shall be adjusted accordingly. . Ld. Counsel for plaintiff to make good in deficiency of Court Fee. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly & file be consigned to RR.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON :20.1.2011 (SURINDER S. RATHI)ADJ07/ CENTRAL:DELHI 20.1.2011 @contd.
26@contd.
27
CS NO:145/06 ID NO: 0240962192006 VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA VS.
SH.C.P.SHARMA 20.1.2011 Pr: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. S.S.Katyal advocate for plaintiff with plaintiff Ld. Counsel Sh. Kamal Chaudhary advocate for defendant FA heard further from both the sides at length and file perused. Vide a separate judgment of the day, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed with cost. Let a decree of possession be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with a direction to vacate the suit flat and hand over the vacant possession of the suit flat i.e. flat no. C503, Lake view Cooperative Housing Society, Sunder Vihar , Delhi consisting of three bed rooms with attached bath kitchen, one servant bed room with attached bathroom. decreed with cost. Decree for recovery of mesne profit is passed from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2006 @Rs.7,600/ per month , for the year 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 @Rs.8,600/ per month, for the year 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 @Rs.9,600/ per month, for the year 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 @Rs.10,600/ per month and for the year 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 @Rs.11,600/ per month and from 1.1.11 to till the date of vacation @Rs.12,600/ per @contd.
28month be prepared accordingly with interest @14% per annum pendentilite till the date of actual realisaion. Decree for Rs.1000/ per month towards maintenance for 1.1.2006 to 30.6.2009, Rs.1200/ per month for 1.07.09 to 31.10.2010 and Rs.1400/ per month from 1.11.2010 onwards till actual vacation be also prepared . Plaintiff shall be entitled to enhanced damages in future in the same fashion @Rs.1000/ per year increase in case he is not handed over the vacant possession of the suit flat in this calender year. This shall exclude maintenance charges payable to the society where the suit flat is located. The payments made by defendant tenant in compliance of Under order 39 Rule 10 CPC shall be adjusted accordingly. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff to make good in deficiency of Court Fee. File be consigned to RR.
It has been submitted by the LD. Counsel for plaintiff that his application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. is also pending for disposal. Ahlmad to get it registered separately and same shall be heard now on 28.2.2011.
(SURINDER S. RATHI) ADJ07/CENTRALDELHI:
20.1.2011 @contd.29
DECREE IN SUIT FOR POSSESSION (Order XX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure) IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI, ADJ/CENTRAL-7 DELHI.
CS NO:145/06 ID NO: 0240962192006 SH.VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA S/o Late Dr. W. Gupta R/o 53, Panch Kuin Road, New Delhi. .....Plaintiff VS.
SH.C.P.SHARMA S/o Sh.J.C.Sharma R/o 21-A, Queens Apartment, Bandra Mumabi-50 IInd Address C-503, Lakeview Co-operative Group Housing Society, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi. ....Defendant SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT AND DAMAGES / MESNE PROFITS Date of Institution : 13.10.2006 Date of Final hearing : 20.01.2011 Date of Judgment : 20.01.2011 This suit coming for disposal before me in the presence of LD. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. S.S.Katyal advocate for plaintiff and LD. Counsel for defendant Sh. Kamal Chaudhary. It is ordered that suit of the plaintiff stands decred in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled mesne profit from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2006 @Rs.7,600/- per month , for the year 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 @Rs.8,600/- per month, for the year 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 @Rs.9,600/- per month, for the year 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 @Rs.10,600/- per month and for the year 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 @Rs.11,600/- per month and from 1.1.11 to till the date of vacation @Rs.12,600/- per month be prepared accordingly with interest @14% per annum pendentilite till the date of actual realisaion.
@contd.
30Plaintiff is also awarded maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per month towards for 1.1.2006 to 30.6.2009, Rs.1200/- per month for 1.07.09 to 31.10.2010 and Rs.1400/- per month from 1.11.2010 onwards till actual vacation be also prepared . Plaintiff shall be entitled to enhanced damages in future in the same fashion @Rs.1000/- per year increase in case he is not handed over the vacant possession of the suit flat in this calender year. This shall exclude maintenance charges payable to the society where the suit flat is located. The payments made by defendant tenant in compliance of Under order 39 Rule 10 CPC shall be adjusted accordingly. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff to make good in deficiency of Court Fee.
Costs of the suits
Plaintiff Defendant
Stamp for plaint Stamp for power NIL
Stamp for power Stamp for exhibits NIL
Stamp for exhibits Stamp for petition NIL
Pleader's fee Pleader's fee NIL
Subsistence for witness Subsistence for witness NIL
Commissioner's fee Commissioner's fee NIL
Service of process Miscellaneous NIL
Miscellaneous
Total Total NIL
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, Dated 20.01.2011.
(SURINDER S. RATHI)ADJ-07/ CENTRALDELHI:20.1.2011 @contd.