Delhi District Court
Swaran Singh vs Smt. Gurmeet Kaur on 30 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms. REKHA RANI
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI
RCA No. 20/2015
Unique ID No. 02401C0432362015
Swaran Singh
S/o. Shri Jagir Singh
R/o. Rear Portion of Ground Floor
F137, PhaseII
Mayapuri Industrial Area
New Delhi. . . . . Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur
W/o. Shri Bhupender Singh
2. Shri Bhupender Singh
S/o. Shri Charan Singh
Both R/o. WZ255, Gali No. 14
Shiv Nagar, Jail Road
New Delhi. . . . . Respondents
Date of institution : 19.08.2015
Judgment Reserved on : 30.01.2016
Date of pronouncement : 30.01.2016
JUDGMENT
1. The instant appeal bearing RCA No. 20/2015 is directed against judgment and decree dated 17.07.2015 passed by Ld. Civil RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page1of20 Judge11 (Central), Delhi in Civil Suit bearing No. 74/2013 titled Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. vs. Swaran Singh, vide which Ld. Trial Court granted decree for recovery of possession of property i.e. rear portion of ground floor, F137, PhaseII, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi (in short, 'suit property'), which was let out to the defendant/appellant herein and also granted decree for recovery of Rs.97,933/ alongwith pendente lite and future mesne profits @ Rs.8,500/ per month from the date of filing of suit till recovery of possession of the suit property. It was also ordered that the mesne profits will carry simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realization of said amount.
2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents, who put in appearance and contested the same.
3. For effective adjudication, Trial Court Record of Suit No. 74/13 was requisitioned, received and perused.
4. I have heard Shri Vineet Mehta, Ld. counsel for the appellant and Ms. Shaily Rohatgi, Ld. counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the record.
• Plaintiffs/ respondents herein filed civil suit bearing No. 74/13 against the defendant/ appellant herein pleading therein interalia : that defendant/ appellant herein acknowledged plaintiff no.1 - Smt. Gurmeet Kaur as his landlady on the basis RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page2of20 of Will dated 07.12.2005 executed by her mother in her favour qua the suit property vide lease deed dated 04.06.2005 at rental of Rs. 8,500/ per month excluding electricity and water charges;
• that it was also her case that prior to 01.05.2006, defendant/appellant herein had been tenant in respect of the suit property at rental of Rs. 7,700/ per month besides water and electricity charges under her mother namely Smt. Adar Kaur, who died on 15.12.2005 bequeathing the suit property in her favour vide Will dated 07.12.2005. The tenancy was stated to be monthly commencing from first of each English calender month and ending on the last date of said English calender month. Further it is pleaded that in view of the tenancy being monthly, which stood determined with efflux of time on 31.03.2007, coupled with the fact that the defendant/appellant herein being bad pay master, plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein served a legal notice dated 30.03.2007 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act on the defendant/appellant herein calling upon him to handover vacant peaceful possession of suit property to her and also to pay the arrears of rent, which notice was duly received by the defendant/appellant herein and despite service of notice having failed to vacate the suit property or pay her the arrears of rent as due, the instant civil suit bearing CS No. 74/13 was filed.
RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page3of20
5. In his written statement, defendant/appellant herein has in nutshell pleaded that Smt. Adar Kaur, mother of plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein had given the suit property on rent to the defendant/appellant herein at rental of Rs. 4,000/ per month and after her death in 2005, the suit property was jointly inherited by her legal heirs and he had paid rent to them upto April, 2007. Further it is pleaded that plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein is one of the legal heirs of Smt. Adar Kaur, who having not obtained letter of administration in respect of suit property is not competent to file the instant suit particularly in view of the fact that other legal heirs have filed a suit for partition bearing No. 266/2005 interalia qua the suit property., which is pending in the Court of Shri Vimal Kumar Yadav, Ld. ADJ, Delhi and the other legal heirs have not authorized the plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein to institute the present suit and it is not clear in whose share the suit property will come and therefore, the suit is barred for nonjoinder of legal heirs of Smt. Adar Kaur. It was pleaded that the lease deed is forged and fabricated. It was further pleaded that Smt. Adar Kaur created perpetual oral tenancy in his favour and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.
6. Ld. Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues vide order dated 22.11.2007 :
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page4of20
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite & future damages/ mesne profits for the unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises? If so, to what extent? OPP
(iii) Whether the suit is without cause of action?
OPD
(iv) Relief.
7. Plaintiffs no.2 examined himself as PW1. Defendant/appellant herein failed to lead any evidence.
8. Qua issue No.3, Ld. Trial Court held that cosharer / coowner is competent to institute an eviction suit against the tenant and therefore, the suit is not barred for nonjoinder of legal heirs of Smt. Adar Kaur.
9. Qua issue No.1, Ld. Trial Court held that since tenancy between Smt. Adar Kaur and defendant/appellant herein was oral, it is month to month tenancy terminable by a 15 days notice and the tenancy having been determined, the plaintiffs/respondents herein were held entitled to seek recovery of possession of the suit property.
10. Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of plaintiffs/respondents herein thereby holding the plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein entitled to decree of possession in respect of suit property and decree of recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs. 97,933/ and she was also held RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page5of20 entitled to pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 8,500/ per month from the date of filing of suit till delivery of possession of the suit property.
11. Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment interalia on the following grounds : • that plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein claims to be land lady in respect of the suit property. However she has not stepped into witness box to prove the said fact although she has been appearing in Court alongwith her husband, who is plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2 herein;
• that plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2 herein has no locus standii qua the suit property and hence was incompetent to depose on behalf of plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein;
• that the alleged lease deed dated 04.05.2006 was not proved according to law. Neither any handwriting expert was examined to prove the said lease deed nor plaintiff no.1 examined herself being a signatory to the said lease deed nor any of the two witnesses was examined which was essential, in view of the fact that defendant/appellant herein had denied execution of the said lease deed by him and has alleged the same to be forged document;
• that admittedly Smt. Adar Kaur was the original land lady of the defendant/appellant herein and admittedly Smt. Adar RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page6of20 Kaur died in 2005 so the suit property is jointly owned by all her legal heirs, who are fighting a partition suit in the Court of Ld. ADJ, Delhi and therefore, plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein is not absolute owner of the suit property;
• that Ld. Trial Court wrongly allowed the arrears of rent of Rs.
97,933/ @ Rs. 8,500/ per month on the basis of the disputed lease deed Ex. PW1/2 and that the suit property was let out only at rental of Rs. 4,000/ per month and not at Rs. 8,500/ per month.
QUA OBJECTIONS OF APPELLANT REGARDING COMPETENCE/LOCUS STANDII OF PLAINTIFFS TO FILE THE INSTANT SUIT
12. An objection is raised by the defendant/appellant herein that he was a tenant of Smt. Adar Kaur and after her death, all her legal heirs have become coowners and therefore, plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein is not exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property and therefore, not competent to institute the present civil suit to seek recovery of possession of the suit property from him. It is also stated that all legal heirs are fighting a partition suit interalia qua the suit property and therefore, it is not known in whose share the suit property would come. It is also submitted that plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein has not obtained any letter of administration qua the suit property and therefore, she alone is not competent to file the instant suit.
RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page7of20
13. In Sriram Pasricha vs. Jagannath & Ors. 1976 AIR 2335, it was observed that a coowner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is. It was also observed that jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a coowner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a partowner or a fractional owner of the property.
In Kanta Goel vs. B.P. Pathak & Ors (1977) 2 SC 814, it was clearly held that when the other coowner did not object to the eviction one coowner could maintain an action for eviction even in the absence of other coowner.
14. In view of the aforesaid, coowner is fully competent to seek eviction of the tenant from the suit property irrespective of whether or not other legal heirs have expressly authorized her to do so. Tenant cannot raise objection as to the locus standii of a coowner on the ground that he is only a coowner or that he is fighting partition suit with other coowners or that he has not sought permission of other coowners to seek recovery of possession of tenanted premises.
15. It is also submitted on behalf of defendant/appellant herein that plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein never stepped into evidence box and plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2 herein could not depose on her behalf.
RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page8of20
16. TCR of civil suit bearing No.74/13 shows that in para 6 & 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has given details of payment of rent by the defendant/ appellant herein to both the plaintiffs/ respondents herein which plea has not been denied in the corresponding paras of the written statement. Paras 6 & 7 of the plaint are reproduced here for ready reference : "6. That the defendant proved to be a bad pay master in the payment of rent to the plaintiffs. As such, a sum of Rs.95,100/ is due and payable towards the arrears of rent besides damages and mesne profits amounting to Rs.2,833/ ; total 97,933/ as per details given below : i. Rent @ Rs.8500/ p.m. w.e.f.01.05.06 to 30.04.07.............................. Rs.1,02,000/ Less Rs.30,000/ paid by the defendant on 4 occasions to the plaintiff no.2 i.e. Rs.8,000/ on 07.06.06, Rs.10,000/ on 29.08.06, Rs.6,000/ on 13.11.06 and Rs.6,000/ on 22.11.06 vide 4 cheques in favour of the plaintiff no.2 on behalf of plaintiff no.1 .................................... Rs.30,000/ _____________________________________ Balance Rs.72,000/ ii. Add the arrears of rent prior to 01.05.06 as admitted by the defendant in the lease deed dated 04.05.06 duly signed by the defendant as per copy of Lease Deed duly received by him on 04.05.06 itself Rs.23,100/ RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page9of20 iii. Damages/ Mesne profits @ Rs.8500/ p.m. for the period of 01.05.07 to 10.05.07 Rs.2,833/ _______________________________________________ Total : Rs.97,933.00 _______________________________________________
7. That since the defendant remitted the said rent of Rs.30,000/ referred to in para 6 above to the plaintiff no.2 on behalf of the plaintiff no.1 with respect to the suit premises towards partpayment, hence, the plaintiff no.2 has been impleaded in the suit so as to overcome the confusion unilaterally created by the defendant."
17. Even in the legal notice dated 30.03.2007 Ex.PW1/3, plaintiffs alleged that rent had been paid by the defendant to both the plaintiffs. Para 4 of the legal notice reads as under : "4. That you are a bad Pay master in the payment of rent and that you have neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.86,600/ as per details given below :
(i). Rent @ Rs.8500/ p.m. w.e.f.
01.05.2006 to 31.03.2007 Rs.93,500/
(ii). Less Rs.30,000/ paid by you on four occasions to Sh. Bhupinder Singh i.e. Rs.8,000/ on 07.06.2006, Rs.10,000/ on 29.08.2006, Rs.6,000/ on 13.11.2006 and Rs.6,000/ on 22.11.2006 vide four cheques in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh on behalf of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Rs.30,000/ _______________________________________ Balance Rs.63,500/ RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page10of20 Add the arrears of rent prior to Rs.23,100/ 01.05.2005 as admitted by you in the lease deed dated 04.05.2006 duly signed by you a copy of which was also supplied to you by my clients.
______________________________________________ Total : Rs.86,600/ (Rs. Eighty six thousand & six hundred) which amount you have neither paid nor tendered to any of my clients inspite of their repeated requests and reminders of demand."
Even in his reply to the aforesaid notice sent on 30.04.2007 Ex.PW1/DX1, defendant has not rebutted that he paid rent to both the plaintiffs in corresponding para 4 thereof.
18. Further defendant/ appellant herein himself stated in para 1 of his written statement that :
"after the death of Smt. Adar Kaur in the year 2005, the property was jointly inherited by her sons and daughters and sometimes her sons and sometimes her daughters or their husbands have been collecting monthly rent from the defendant and the defendant had paid full rent uptil April, 2007".
The defendant/appellant herein has not very cleverly given particulars as to which daughter of deceased Adar Kaur he is referring to.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be reasonably presumed that he is referring to Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein and her husband as it is the RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page11of20 case of plaintiffs as detailed in para 6 of the plaint that defendant/appellant herein had made payment of rent to both the plaintiffs which fact is not denied by defendant/appellant herein in corresponding para 6 and 7 of his written statement. Since, plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein is admittedly legal heir of the deceased landlady and it is not the plea of defendant/ appellant herein that any other coowner/ heir of late Smt. Adar Kaur objected to his eviction sought by the plaintiffs, he cannot dispute the locus standi of the plaintiffs/ respondents herein to file the civil suit.
19. Plaintiff no.2 has also admittedly collected rent from the defendant as pleaded in para 6 of the plaint and not specifically denied in corresponding para 6 of the written statement. It was held in Yashoda Bai vs. Lakshmamma 2003 (2) RCR (Rent) 702 (Karnatka) that a person who collects rent from tenant comes within the meaning of landlord and is entitled to seek his eviction.
SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANT/APPELLANT HEREIN QUA TENANCY BEING PERPETUAL ORAL TENANCY
20. Ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that late Smt. Adar Kaur, his landlady created perpetual lease in his favour orally which submission lacks credibility in view of Section 17(1)(d) of The Registration Act, 1908 which mandates that a lease of an immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year has to be by way of a registered document and no such document has been produced by the appellant.
RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page12of20
21. In view of above, it cannot be disputed that the tenancy was from month to month, which can be determined either by efflux of time or issuance of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act or by filing of civil suit for recovery of possession.
OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT/APPELLANT HEREIN QUA LEASE DEED DATED 04.05.2006 BEING FORGED AND FABRICATED
22. Plaintiffs/respondents herein have referred to lease deed dated 04.05.2006, which is allegedly executed by plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein and defendant/appellant herein. Defendant/appellant herein has alleged that the said lease deed is forged.
23. Ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that Ld. Trial Court has unlawfully presumed that the lease deed dated 04.05.2006 Ex.PW1/Z was executed in absence of same having been proved as per law. Ld. counsel further submitted that Ld. Trial Court erroneously relied on the testimony of PW1 to hold that lease deed was proved whereas PW1 was neither a signatory to said lease deed nor he stated that the same was executed in his presence. Ld. counsel further submitted that neither plaintiff no.1 who is a signatory to the said lease deed was examined nor the two marginal witnesses namely Sh. Pratap Singh and Sh. J.S. Sabharwal were examined to prove that the lease deed was actually executed and RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page13of20 signed by the defendant/ appellant herein.
Ld. counsel for the appellant further submitted that the plaintiffs/ respondents herein did not examine any handwriting expert to prove disputed signatures of the appellant on the said document and therefore, Ld. Trial Court wrongly observed that the lease deed was proved and accordingly directed payment of rent @ Rs.8500/ per month as per the lease deed.
24. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing or finger impressions the opinions of expert are relevant. Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
25. Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence by Chief Justice R.Monir Vol. 1 1986 Edition pages 816818 mentions the following as the modes of proving a signature or writing recognized by the Indian Evidence Act: "(i) By calling the person who signed or wrote the document. (ii) By calling a person in whose presence the document was signed or written. (iii) By calling a handwriting expert. (iv) By calling person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written.
RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page14of20
(v) By comparing in court the disputed signature or writing with some admitted signature or writing. (vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it. (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person. (viii) A signature is proved to have been made if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some other person, e.g. by the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant. (ix) By other circumstantial evidence.
26. It is true that plaintiff did not step into the witness box to state that the lease deed was executed between her and the appellant herein or that defendant/ appellant herein signed the lease deed in her presence. At the same time, it is also true that defendant/ appellant herein also did not step into the witness box to say that he did not sign the lease deed Ex.PW1/Z nor the marginal witnesses in whose presence the said lease deed was executed were examined.
In such circumstances, the Court can compare the disputed signatures of the defendant/ appellant herein at point 'A' on the lease deed Ex.PW1/Z with some admitted signatures of the defendant/ appellant herein i.e. on his written statement and on such comparison has found disputed and admitted signatures of the appellant similar.
RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page15of20
27. Reference may also be made to legal notice dated 30.03.2007 Ex.PW1/3. In para 1 of the said legal notice, it is stated that defendant/appellant herein was a tenant in respect of suit property on monthly rent of Rs. 8,500/ per month excluding water and electricity charges for commercial purpose for a period of eleven months commencing w.e.f. 01.05.2006 ending on 31.03.2007 in terms of the lease deed dated 04.05.2006 duly signed by the defendant/appellant herein and plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein. Interestingly, the averments made in para 1 of legal notice dated 30.03.2007 Ex. PW1/3 are not specifically denied by the appellant in corresponding para 1 of his reply dated 30.04.2007 Ex. PW1/DX1. It is not specifically denied that no lease deed dated 04.05.2006 was signed by the appellant with respondent no.1.
In para 2 of legal notice Ex. PW1/3, the plaintiffs/respondent herein again reiterated that the rent of suit property was at the rate of Rs. 8,500/ per month in terms of clause 5 of the said lease deed executed between the plaintiff no.1/respondent no.1 herein and defendant/appellant herein. The appellant is again silent on these submissions in corresponding para 2 of his reply Ex. PW1/DX1.
In para 4 of the said legal notice, the plaintiffs have given details as to how much rent is due in terms of lease deed dated 04.05.2006 from the defendant/appellant herein to the plaintiff/respondent herein after deduction of some rent paid by defendant/appellant herein to plaintiffs/respondents herein. Again defendant/appellant herein is totally silent qua averments made in RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page16of20 para 4 of said legal notice and has not replied to same in corresponding para 4 of his reply to said notice. It is only in para 5 of his reply that he has simply and vaguely stated that he has not entered into any agreement/contract with the plaintiff. Similarly in his written statement, he is vague and evasive. In para 6 of the plaint, plaintiff has specifically referred to calculation of arrears of rent, mesne profits / damages as per lease deed dated 04.05.2006. Defendant is again silent about the same in para 6 of his written statement.
28. Even in the absence of lease deed Ex.PW1/Z, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property in view of the admissions made by the defendant/ appellant herein in his written statement. He has admitted that Smt. Adar Kaur, late mother of plaintiff no.1/ respondent no.1 herein was his landlady. He has admitted that plaintiff no.1 / respondent no.1 herein is daughter of Smt. Adar Kaur. He has further admitted that after the death of Smt. Adar Kaur, he has been paying rent sometimes to daughters, sometimes to daughters' husbands of Smt. Adar Kaur. As observed earlier, he has cleverly not named the daughters/ their husbands. Since, it is plaintiff no.1 only who has come forward to seek eviction of the defendant/ appellant herein from the tenanted premises, it can be presumed that the defendant is referring to Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (plaintiff no.1) as daughter & Sh. Bhupender Singh (plaintiff no.2) as her husband to whom he paid rent. This RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page17of20 presumption is fortified if we refer to submissions made by the plaintiffs in para 6 read with para 7 of the plaint in which it is clearly stated that defendant had made payment of rent to both the plaintiffs which fact is not denied by the defendant/ appellant herein in corresponding paras 6 & 7 of his written statement. As held earlier, a coowner can file a suit for eviction of the tenant and the tenant cannot object to locus standi of the colandlord/ coowner. As such, it is clear that there existed relationship of landlady and tenant between plaintiff no.1 and the defendant.
29. The defendant/ appellant herein has also clearly admitted that rate of rent was more than Rs.3500/ per month. As per his own case Smt. Adar Kaur inducted him as tenant in the tenanted premises way back in the year 1995 @ Rs.4000/ per month. Since, tenancy as per his case was created orally, such a tenancy being from month to month can be determined by service of notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act or by filing a civil suit for eviction.
30. In Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) 2008 (2) SCC 728, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that filing of suit is itself a notice to quit on the tenant and therefore, no notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary to enable the landlord to get the decree of possession. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder: "In any view of the matter, it is well settled that RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page18of20 filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant.
31. In Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF), 182 (2011) DLT 402, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even assuming that the notice of termination was not served, the tenancy shall stand terminated on filing of the suit. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "7. The second argument that the legal notice dated 15.7.2006 was not received by the Appellant, and consequently the tenancy cannot be said to have been validly terminated, is also an argument without substance and there are many reasons for rejecting this argument. These reasons are as follows:
xxx
(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) 2008 (2) SCC 728 has held that the tenancy would stand terminated under general law on filing of a suit for eviction. Accordingly, in view of the decision in the case of Nopany (supra) I hold that even assuming the notice terminating tenancy was not served upon the Appellant (though it has been served and as held by me above) the tenancy would stand terminated on filing of the subject suit against the appellant/defendant."
RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page19of20
32. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for reasons mentioned hereinabove. Plaintiff no.1/ respondent no.1 herein is held entitled to decree for recovery of possession of rear builtup portion of the ground floor of F137, PhaseII, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi as shown in red in the site plan Ex.PW1/1, placed on the TCR of Suit No.74/13.
33. She is further held entitled to recovery of Rs.97,933/ towards arrears of rent. She is also held entitled to pendentelite and future mesne profits @ Rs.8500/ per month from the date of filing of the civil suit bearing No.74/13 with simple interest @12% per annum, as claimed in the plaint, to the date of realization thereof. Payment made by the defendant/ appellant herein, if any, during the pendency of Trial Court proceedings be adjusted.
Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of the judgment. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court ( Rekha Rani )
th
today this the 30 day of District & Sessions Judge (West)
January, 2016. Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
RCA No. 20/15 Swaran Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Page20of20