Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sharda Meena W/O Sh. M.C. Meena vs Rakesh Yadav S/O Sh. Maru Ram on 24 October, 2024

  CS SCJ 1220/2022                                  SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV

           IN THE COURT OF MS. SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY,
            CIVIL JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT,
                                            DELHI
Case No.                    : CS SCJ 1220/2022
CNR No.                     : DLST03-002103-2022

                                    IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. SHARDA MEENA
W/o Sh. M. C. Meena,
R/o D-2/562 and D-3/71,
Chhatarpur Hills, New Delhi-110074.                        ...............Plaintiff

                                            Versus

SH. RAKESH YADAV
S/o Sh. Maru Ram,
R/o 177-F/18, Ward No. 2,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030.                                ............Defendant

                                             ****

SUIT FOR EVICTION, RECOVERY OF RENTS
ALONGWITH PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST,
MESNE PROFIT AND RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS.

                                             ****
              Date of Institution of suit                     :     02.12.2022
              Date of Reserving of Judgment                   :     06.09.2024
              Date of Pronouncement of Judgment               :     24.10.2024
                                             ****
                                         JUDGMENT

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of possession, recovery of arrears of rent and litigation expenses against the SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY defendant.

(Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 1 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV PLAINT

2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing Plot no. 562, Gali No. 2, Shop no. 2 and 3, Ground floor, Chhattarpur Hills, New Delhi. The plaintiff let out the said property to the defendant in the month of October 2021 at a monthly rent of Rs.13,300/- for each shop. In total, Rs.26,600/- were agreed as rent for both shops, exclusive of electricity charges and maintenance. Two separate rent agreements were executed on 29.10.2021 and the tenancy was to commence from 01.11.2021 till 30.09.2022.

3. That the defendant agreed to be bound by the rent agreement and took the shop on rent to carry out business of hardware and electrical appliances for 11 months subject to enhancement @ 10% after completion of 11 months. It was also agreed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the premises vacated in case of default in payment of rent for two consecutive months.

4. That on 25.06.2022, the husband of the plaintiff came to know that few officials of GST Department had raided/visited the rented premises of the plaintiff. Upon inquiry, the defendant apprised the plaintiff that there was some mismatch in the bill accounts of the firm of the defendant i.e. Vishal Electricals and Hardware. Hence, he cannot carry out his business in the said registered mail and GST Number. The defendant requested to provide a fresh rent agreement in the name of the new business, so SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY that he can apply to get new GST Number.

(Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 2 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV

5. That on 07.07.2022, the husband of the plaintiff searched the GST Number of the defendant firm on GST website and was shocked to know that the said number is registered in the name of Sh. Chander Kalan, who was never the tenant of the plaintiff. However, the name of the firm i.e. Vishal Electricals was the same. On confrontation, the defendant admitted that he prepared the rent agreement in the name of Sh. Chander Kalan and had forged the signatures of the plaintiff. He also produced the forged rent agreement before GST department and got the GST registration number in the name of Sh. Chander Kalan.

6. That the plaintiff assumed that the defendant is engaged in unlawful activities. It also came to her knowledge that defendant was displaying goods in the front of the shops and had encroached the backside gali, situated between Gali no. 1 and 2 of Chhattarpur Hills, which was a clear violation of terms and conditions of the rent agreement.

7. Due to the conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 07.07.2022 to the defendant, directing him to vacate the rented shops within one month and clear the arrears of rent. After receiving the notice, the defendant abused the plaintiff and her husband and used filthy languages. He also went to the extent of passing casteist remarks.

8. That on 09.07.2022 at around 10:50 AM, the plaintiff and her husband received a call from brother of the defendant Sh. Roop Ram. He threatened the plaintiff to open the lock SWAYAM of the washroom/toilet situated on the stairs and attached SIDDHA TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:54:25 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 3 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV with the basement within one hour or otherwise, he would enter the main door of the building, break the lock and put his own lock in the washroom. The husband of the plaintiff apprised Sh. Roop Ram that the rent agreement was restricted to the shop only and he has nothing to do with the locked washroom.

9. In the meanwhile, one of plaintiff's contacts namely Sh. Vijay Kumar informed the plaintiff and her husband that Sh. Roop Ram and his servant Sh. Rustam had broken the lock and latch of the main gate and have put their own lock on the washroom/toilet. Due to this, the main gate cannot be locked from outside and it has made the basement, stairs, shop, roof, etc., unsafe and any mishappening may occur. Accordingly, the husband of the plaintiff filed a police complaint before PS Mehrauli vide DD entry no. 170A dated 09.07.2022. The husband of the plaintiff also filed a complaint through Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System on 12.07.2022. The husband of the plaintiff was also informed that the Office of Principal Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Delhi, have issued a letter dated 26.08.2022, however, the same was returned due to the incomplete address. The husband of the plaintiff provided the complete address and requested for cancellation or suspension of registration of the defendant firm u/s 29 of CGST Act, 2017.

10.That the defendant failed to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff from the month of April 2022 and a sum of Rs.1,41,200/- is outstanding upon the defendant. The SWAYAM Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:54:30 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 4 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV defendant has paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards the accumulated unpaid monthly rent. The said amount was paid on three different dates i.e. 04.08.2022, 04.09.2022 and 06.10.2022. Thereafter, no amount was paid despite repeated requests and visits to the defendant. Hence, the present suit.

WRITTEN STATEMENT

11.After institution of the suit, summons was issued to defendant who appeared before the court after service and filed WS.

12.In his WS, the defendant has taken several preliminary objections. He has claimed that he is a retired Army Personnel and had joined Indus Tower Security Services in the year 2016 on the post of Security Officer. Since then, he has been serving in the agency till date. The defendant has never run any shop in the name of Vishal Electronics. The suit of the plaintiff is an abuse of the process of the court and the plaintiff has mislead facts to the court. Remaining averments have been denied by the defendant.

ISSUES

13.On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 24.05.2023:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction of the defendant from the subject property/suit premises in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP.

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:

2024.10.24 16:54:36 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 5 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV arrears of rent of a sum of Rs.1,41,200/- alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum plus Rs.25,000/- for maintenance from the date of accural till its realisation?

OPP.

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP.

iv. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with cost? OPD.

v. Relief.

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE

14.Plaintiff, in support of her case, has examined herself as PW1 and placed on record her affidavit in evidence vide Ex. PW1/1. She relied upon the following documents:

Sl. No. Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents

1. Ex. PW1/A Copy of Adhar Card of plaintiff.

(OSR)

2. Ex.PW1/B Copy of rent agreement dated (OSR) (Colly) 29.10.2021.

3. Ex. PW1/C Copy of rent agreement dated (OSR) (Colly) 04.05.2016.

4. Ex.PW1/D Copy of legal notice dated (OSR) 07.07.2022.

5. Mark A Copy of police complaint to PS Mehrauli dated 09.07.2022 vide SWAYAM SIDDHA DD Entry no. 170A.

TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:54:41 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 6 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV

6. Mark B (Colly) Copy of the complaint filed in CPGRAMS to CBIC dated 12.07.2022.

7. Mark C (Colly) Copy of rent agreement uploaded in the GST portal for fraudulent registration of M/s Vishal Electricals and Hardware.

8. Mark D Copy of letter dated 25.08.2022.

9. Mark E (Colly) Copy of letter dated 02.09.2022 received from Assistant Commissioner regarding cancellation or suspension of registration of M/s Vishal Electricals and Hardware.

10. Ex.PW1/J Copy of legal notice dated 17.08.2022.

11. Ex.PW1/K Original postal receipts.

12. Mark F Tracking report.

15.Plaintiff also examined her husband Sh. M. C. Meena as PW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1. Both the witness were duly examined-in-chief and cross-examined by the defendant. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed vide order dated 31.10.2023.

DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA

16.Defendant examined himself as DW1. DW1, in support of TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:54:45 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 7 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV his case, has placed on record affidavit in evidence vide Ex. DW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:

Sl. Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents No.

1. Mark X Copy of appointment letter.

2. Mark Y Copy of bank statement from 02.04.2021 to 31.03.2022.

17.DW1 was examined-in-chief and cross-examined by the plaintiff. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of defendant was closed vide order dated 11.07.2024 and matter was fixed for final arguments.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

18.I have heard the counsels for all the parties who argued as per their pleadings and the arguments are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.

DECISION AND REASONING THEREOF

19.My issue-wise findings are as under:

Issue No. 1 and 3:

20.Vide separate statement dated 21.10.2024, the Counsel for plaintiff deleted the relief of eviction as well as litigation charges. Therefore, no finding is given on these issues. Issue No. 2:

21.The burden to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and had given the property on rent to the defendant by way of rent agreement dated 29.10.2021. Due to unauthorized and suspicious activities of the SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA defendant, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:54:49 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 8 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV defendant by way of notice dated 07.10.2022 and now the defendant is in arrears of rent.

22.In order to get a decree in her favour, the plaintiff has to firstly establish that she is the owner of the property and had inducted the defendant as a tenant. She then has to prove that she terminated the tenancy of the defendant either orally or in writing. Lastly, the plaintiff has to establish that the defendant was in arrears of rent, which he is liable to pay to the plaintiff.

23.Firstly, the plaintiff has relied upon the rent agreement Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C to substantiate her claim of tenency. The rent agreement Ex.PW1/B was executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 29.10.2021 for renting out the shop no. 3, situated on the ground floor of the suit property. The tenancy commenced from 01.11.2021 to 30.09.2022 and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.13,300/- exclusive of other charges. The rent agreement Ex.PW1/C was executed between the parties on 04.05.2016 for renting out the store no. 2 of the suit property. The lease commenced from 01.05.2016 to 31.03.2017 for a monthly rent of Rs.12,100/-.

24.The plaintiff has not filed any other proof of tenancy apart from these rent agreements. The rent agreements have been disputed by the defendant and who has claimed them as forged and fabricated. The plaintiff was also cross- examined to this effect by the Counsel for defendant.

25.In the cross-examination of PW1, she deposed that the SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY shop in question is in the possession of a tenant namely Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:54:58 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 9 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV Sandeep, who has been inducted as a tenant in that month i.e. in August 2023. She disclosed that she received the possession of the shop on 28.02.2023 and admitted that she has not informed the court regarding receiving of possession. She further deposed that the tenant prior to Sandeep was inducted in the year 2014 and he used to pay rent in cash till 2023. She could not tell whether a rent agreement was executed for each year, when the defendant occupied the shop. The rent agreements were executed at Mehrauli and later on at Chhatarpur. She denied that rent agreement Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/D have been signed by her husband and not by her.

26.PW1 further deposed that four shops in the suit property have been rented by her and she maintains the record of the shops. She admitted that she has filed the shops' record before the court. She could not tell the rent received from the shops by her. She was asked whether she can bring any bank statement showing any payment made by defendant in her bank account from 2014 till date. She replied that she had already furnished all the documents/records available with her. She denied the remaining suggestions.

27.Furthermore, PW2 in his cross-examination admitted that he has not filed any documents pertaining to ownership of the suit property or any document showing receipt of rent from the defendant. He denied that his shop has been vacated at present. He has denied the remaining suggestions.

28.DW1 also appeared in the witness box and was cross-

SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:

2024.10.24 16:55:23 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 10 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV examined on behalf of the plaintiff. He deposed that he is currently working as a security officer in Indus Tower since 2011. He neither knows the plaintiff nor any person named Chander Kalan or that she was the tenant of the plaintiff. He admitted that he has not filed any complaint to the police authorities that a false agreement was executed by the plaintiff. He denied the remaining suggestions.

29.The onus to establish the factum of tenancy was upon plaintiff. The plaintiff has only relied upon the rent agreements Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C in this regard, which have been disputed by the defendant. It is important to note that the defendant has denied the execution of the rent agreements from the very beginning and has claimed that he has nothing to do with the property. It is surprising that even when the defendant disputed the rent agreement, the signatures of the defendant were not confronted to him at the time of his cross-examination. In fact, apart from mere suggestions, the defendant was also not cross- examined regarding the execution of the rent agreements. The plaintiff also did not summon/produce and examine the attesting witnesses to the rent agreements. The notary official was also not examined who could have established and verified the authenticity of the rent agreements.

30.Counsel for defendant has argued that the rent agreements relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated and have not been proved as notary was neither summoned nor examined. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in J. G. Hegde v. R . D. Digitally signed SWAYAM by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:55:28 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 11 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV Shukla, AIR 2004 BOM 55 wherein the Court had observed that a notary has to comply with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Notaries Act, 1956 and is required to maintain a register in the form No. XV to the rules. However, in the present case, the plaintiff did not even call the notary therefore, the question of whether proper entries were made in the register, does not arise. The defendant however had summoned the notary but, he did not appear despite opportunity. Hence, his examination was dispensed with. But, the fact remains that the plaintiff did not make any efforts to examine the notary official.

31.Even otherwise, the plaintiff could have corroborated her averments by way of any other document establishing the tenancy of the defendant. The plaintiff neither produced any rent receipt issued in lieu of cash payments of rent nor showed any online transfer of rent from the defendant. The payments of other charges received from the defendant have also not been furnished to establish that the defendant occupied the suit property and enjoyed the utilities. Both PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined in this regard and they still did not utilise the opportunity to file any such document.

32.It is also important to note that the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property in the month of October 2021 vide two separate rent agreements. However, the plaintiff has only furnished rent agreement of one shop i.e., shop no. 3 executed on 29.10.2021 which is Ex. PW1/B. The rent agreement Ex.

SWAYAM by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:55:34 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 12 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV PW1/C was executed for store room no.2 and on 04.05.2016. Another rent agreement Mark C has been filed however, the same appears to have been executed between the plaintiff and Chander Kalan, which is alleged to be forged by the defendant. Thus, no rent agreement has been furnished with respect to shop no.2 of the suit property.

33.Furthermore, PW1 deposed in her cross-examination that the tenant prior to Sandeep (the present tenant), was inducted as a tenant from 2014 who used to pay rent in cash. It is not clear as to whether PW1 is referring to the defendant herein. If it is so, then the plaintiff has concealed the period of tenancy from this Court. If PW1 refers to any person other than the defendant then it will further give rise to the question as to the time period of tenancy of the defendant as admittedly he vacated the premises on 28.02.2023. During the entire trial, the plaintiff never mentioned that defendant has vacated the suit property after filing of the suit. It was only when PW1 was cross- examined to this effect, the factum of vacation of the suit property was disclosed to the court. Later on, the relief of eviction was also deleted on behalf of the plaintiff. The testimony of DW1 has also not yielded any significant information to strengthen the plaintiff's case.

34.In conclusion, the plaintiff has failed to prove any document to assert his claim that the defendant was inducted into the suit property as a tenant and was occupying the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has Digitally signed SWAYAM by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:55:38 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 13 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV successfully proven that the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to such relief. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

ISSUE NO. 4:

35.The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. As discussed above, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus placed upon her thus, she is not entitled to any reliefs.

However, no ground is made out to dismiss the suit with costs. The issue is decided accordingly.

RELIEF

36.In view of findings on issues No. 2, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

37.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:

2024.10.24 16:55:42 +0530 Announced in the open court (Swayam Siddha Tripathy) on 24.10.2024 Civil Judge-02(South) (This judgment contains 14 pages Saket Courts, New Delhi and each page has been signed by me.) 24.10.2024 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 14 of 14)