Delhi District Court
Arun Kumar Gupta vs Archna Singh on 22 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE - 02 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET COURTS COMPLEX: NEW
DELHI
CS No. 934/19
Arun Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Ram Kumar Gupta
R/o L29, Third Floor, Kalkaji,
New Delhi110019 ............. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Archna Singh
W/o Sh. Sanjay Pratap
R/o L29, Third Floor, Kalkaji
New Delhi110019 ..........Defendant
Date of Institution : 23.10.2019
Arguments concluded : 22.01.2021
Date of decision : 22.01.2021
J U D G M E N T (exparte)
1. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit / damages and permanent injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the entire third floor portion of the property bearing Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 1/9 no. L29, Kalkaji, New Delhi by virtue of a sale deed executed by its erstwhile owner which is duly registered vide document no. 221, Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 13117 at pages no 101 to 112 dt. 13.01.2011. It is stated that sometime in September, 2018 the defendant had approached the plaintiff to let out the said entire third floor portion of the property no. L 29, Kalkjai, New Delhi110019 with fittings and fixtures for residential purpose and plaintiff had also accordingly, agreed to let out the same to the defendant for a period of 22 months. It is stated that as per the negotiation held between the parties, a lease agreement dt. 26.09.2018 has been executed between the parties which was also got registered in the office of SubRegistrarV, Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is stated that as per the said lease agreement dt. 26.09.2018, the plaintiff has inducted the defendant as a tenant in respect of the suit property for a period of 22 months. It is stated that vide said lease agreement, it was mutually agreed between the parties that the rent would be increased by 10 % after completion of 11 months and the rent would be Rs. 45,000/ per month excluding all other charges and thereafter, the rent would be Rs. 49,500/ per month apart from other charges.
3. It is stated that it has also been agreed between the parties that apart from paying the monthly rent, the defendant would also pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/ per month being charges of guard and also a sum of Rs. 2,000/ per month for maintenance of lift. It is stated that it was also agreed between the parties that apart from the monthly rent, the defendant would Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 2/9 pay an amount of Rs. 90,000/ as security deposit which would be refunded by the plaintiff to the defendant without any interest only on handing over the physical vacant possession of the suit property after deducting the wear and tear and outstanding bills. Accordingly, the defendant had deposited a sum of Rs. 90,000/ interest free as security deposit with the plaintiff. It was also agreed between the parties that apart from paying the monthly rent of the suit property, the defendant would pay the electricity and water charges separately qua the suit property as per meter reading directly to the concerned department.
4. It is stated that it has also been clearly agreed between the parties that if the defendant fails to pay regularly the monthly rent then in that event, the plaintiff may terminate the lease or the lease would stand automatically terminated. It is stated that as per clause no. 18 of the said lease agreement dt. 26.09.2018, it has also been agreed that the defendant shall hand over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on termination of the lease agreement. It is stated that as the defendant did not pay the rent for a continuous period of four months since March 2019, the plaintiff was forced to issue a legal notice dt. 25.07.2019 to the defendant and vide the said legal notice, the tenancy of the defendant was also terminated and the defendant was called upon to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property apart from clearing all the outstanding charges.
5. It is stated that after service of the said legal notice, the Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 3/9 defendant had paid the rent due w.e.f. March, 2019 to June, 2019 but did not hand over the possession of the suit property and thereafter the defendant stopped paying the rent and other charges. It is stated that after service of the said notice, the defendant is an unauthorized occupant in respect of the suit property w.e.f. 01.09.2019 onwards. It is stated that apart from paying the said amount of Rs. 45,000/ per month alongwith guard and lift charges, he is also liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ per day being illegal and unauthorized occupant of the suit property. However, the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 30,000/ per month apart from an amount of Rs. 45,000/ per month.
6. It is stated that in fact after the termination of tenancy the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 75,000/ as damages w.e.f. 01.09.2019 and also liable to pay Rs. 45,000/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.2019 to 31.08.2019 alongwith guard and lift charges. It is stated that defendant is liable to pay the rent for the period of 01.07.2019 to 31.08.2019 for Rs. 49,500/ and rent for the month of August of Rs. 49,500/ totaling amount to Rs. 99,000/. It is also stated that defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs. 79,500/ each for the month of September and October, 2019. It is stated that defendant is thus, liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,58,000/ till October, 2019 and is further liable to pay every month the damages and other charges till handing over the possession of the suit property.
7. It is stated that in view of the acts and conduct of the defendant, the defendant has now got no right to use and occupy the suit Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 4/9 property any more, therefore, the defendant is liable to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that till the defendant hands over the possession of the suit property, is also to pay the said amount of Rs. 79,500/ per month that too month by month to the plaintiff and even during the pendency of the present suit. It is further relevant to mention that since 01.07.2019 the defendant has not paid any amount to the plaintiff and whereas the defendant is still in use, occupation and possession of the suit property.
8. It is stated that as the statutory period of handing over the possession of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff elapsed as the defendant was called upon vide said legal notice dt. 25.07.2019 to vacate the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff had requested the defendant on 01.09.2019 for handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and also for paying the due rent as well as damages and other charges. It is stated that defendant has not only refused to hand over the possession of the suit property but has flatly refused to pay the other charges. It is further stated that defendant has also threatened for creating third party right in respect of the suit property. However, the defendant has now got no right either to retain the possession of the suit property and has also got no right to create any third party interest in the suit property in any manner.
9. It is further stated that defendant is liable to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff immediately Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 5/9 apart from paying the entire amount. It is stated that as the defendant has not handed over the possession of the suit property and in fact, the defendant has not complied with the mandate of the said legal notice and moreover, the defendant has threatened for creating third party interest in the suit property, therefore, defendant is liable to be restrained from parting with possession and creating any third party right also in respect of the suit property till the defendant actually hands over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant has not paid the said rent and the use and occupation charges, therefore, the defendant is also liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
10. On receipt of present suit, summons of the suit were served upon the defendants through email but neither any written statement was filed on behalf of defendant nor anybody has appeared on behalf of defendant. Hence, the defendant was proceeded against ex parte.
11. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. During his deposition, he also relied upon and exhibited the following documents: S. No. Documents Exhibit
1. Site plan Ex PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Lease deed dt. 26.09.2018 Ex PW1/2 (OSR)
3. Legal notice dt. 25.07.2019 Ex PW1/3 Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 6/9 4. Postal receipt Ex PW1/4 5. Tracking report Ex PW1/5
6. Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Ex PW1/6 Evidence Act
7. Legal notice dt. 23.08.2019 Ex PW1/7
8. Copy of postal receipt Mark A (deexhibited from Ex PW1/8) 9. Tracking report Ex PW1/9
12. I have heard learned counsel for plaintiff and gone through the records.
13. It is well settled proposition of law by numerous dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court that plaintiff has to prove its case on merits even in exparte cases. Unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony has to be shifted to check the claim of plaintiff and relief prayed for against the defendant, who preferred not to join the proceedings.
14. For proving the alleged liability of defendant towards the plaintiff, plaintiff has placed on record Copy of Site plan, Lease deed dt. 26.09.2018, Legal notices, Postal receipt, Tracking report, Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, Copy of postal receipt and Tracking report.
15. The entire verbal testimony as well as the documentary evidence adduced on record has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted as defendant remained exparte throughout the proceedings.
16. PW1 has categorically deposed on the lines of averments made Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 7/9 in the plaint regarding liability of the defendants company to pay the outstanding amount. The case of the plaintiff has been duly proved by the PW1. The suit of the plaintiff company is also within the period of limitation and this court also has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertained the present suit. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted without any challenge as defendants have chosen not to appear or contest the suit of plaintiff.
17. As far as the liability of the defendants is concerned, the same stands proved in view of the unrebutted testimony of PW1.
18. In view of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is hereby entitled for a decree of possession of the suit property i.e. entire third floor of the property No. L29, Kalkaji, New Delhi in his favour and against the defendant and is further entitled for recovery for a sum of Rs. 2,58,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant towards the arrear of rent of suit property and damages w.e.f. 01.07.2019 to 31.10.2019 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the present suit till its actual realization.
19. Plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of sum of Rs. 79,500/ per month w.e.f. 01.11.2019 till the defendant hands over the actual, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till its actual realization.
Plaintiff is further entitled for a decree of permanent injunction Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 8/9 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant, her family members, successors, nominees or any other person authorized in this regard by the defendant from creating any third party interest in any manner in the suit property in question. No orders as to costs.
20. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly after calculating the advolarum court fee on the relief and be given to the plaintiff after payment of such additional court fees.
21. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced & dictated in (Neelam Singh)
the Open Court on 22.01.2021 ADJ02/SE/Saket Courts/Delhi
Suit no. 934/19 Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Archana Singh 9/9