Delhi District Court
Dr. R.P. Sharma vs Sh. Vipin Kumar on 10 April, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03 (WEST), DELHI
Suit No.350/10
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0228532010
Dr. R.P. Sharma
S/o Late Sh. B.D. Sharma
R/o J1, R.B.I. Colony
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi110063 ...............Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Vipin Kumar
S/o Sh. S.P. Singh
R/o 1/69, Sunder Vihar
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi 110063
And also at :
GH13/478, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi110087 ........... Defendant
Other Details:
a) Date of filing the suit : 29.05.2010
b) Date of reserving the order : 02.04.2012
c) Date of order : 10.04.2012
d) Final Order : Suit Decreed
Suit No.350/10 .............1/9
2
J U D G E M E N T
1. The plaintiff Dr. R.P. Sharma has filed the suit on 29.05.2010 for recovery of possession of property bearing No. 1/69, Sunder Vihar, Pashcim Vihar, New Delhi, herein after called as 'Suit Property' and for recovery of Rs.22,000/ p.m. as rent and damages against the defendant Sh. Vipin Kumar.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that he is the owner of the suit property and in the month of January, 2009 at the request of the defendant, the suit premises were rented out to the defendant from 01.02.2009 to 31.12.2009 on monthly rent of Rs.20,000/ p.m which excluded the water and electricity charges and the defendant had also executed a Registered Rent Deed on 13.02.2009 with respect to the said tenancy and the defendant had initially deposited Rs.60,000/ as refundable security with him while taking the said premises on rent. Further, on 31.12.2009, the said agreement came to an end by afflux of time, but, the defendant did not hand him over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property despite repeated requests by the plaintiff and thereafter, on the intervention Suit No.350/10 .............2/9 3 of some persons, the defendant had offered to vacate the said premises by 31.03.10 and also offered to pay rent @ Rs.22,000/ p.m. w.e.f 01.01.10 which was accepted by the plaintiff, but in the first week of April, 2010, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had already sublet the suit property to a person namely Mr. Manpreet Singh, in March, 2010. He submits that accordingly, the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of the registered Rent Deed dt.13.02.2009 and thereafter, he got issued a legal notice dt. 03.04.10 U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act to the defendant whereby he asked the defendant to hand him over the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the said premises but the defendant did not respond. The plaintiff has submitted that the suit is properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees. The plaintiff has prayed that a decree for possession of suit property be passed in his favour and against the defendant. He has further prayed that a decree for Rs.22,000/ be also passed towards rent for the month of April, 2010 and a decree for damages for Rs. 30,000/ p.m. w.e.f. 01.05.10 till actual possession of the said premises is delivered be also passed in his favour along with costs.
3. The defendant had appeared in the case initially but Suit No.350/10 .............3/9 4 thereafter, he stopped appearing and did not file the written statement, hence, vide order dt.10.08.10, my Ld. Predecessor had struck off the defence of the defendant and also proceeded him Ex Parte. Thereafter, vide order dt.27.08.10, the application of the defendant U/o IX Rule 7 CPC was allowed by my Ld. predecessor and the order dt.10.08.2010 was set aside and the Written Statement of the defendant was taken on record. However, thereafter, vide order dt.22.03.11, the defence of defendant was again struck off and he was proceeded Ex.Parte by my Ld. Predecessor.
4. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PA bearing his signatures at points A and B respectively. He has proved on record the Conveyance Deed dt. 30.12.2010 pertaining to the property bearing No.1/69, Sunder Vihar, CHBS Ltd, Paschim Vihar, N.Delhi which is the "suit property" as Ex.PW1/1, the Rent Deed as Ex.PW1/2, Writing by the defendant giving him cheques as Ex.PW1/3, Legal Notice as Ex.PW1/4, Postal Receipt as Ex.PW1/5, AD Card duly signed by the defendant as Ex.PW1/6 and U.P.C. receipt as Ex.PW1/7. In the present case, since the Suit No.350/10 .............4/9 5 defence of the defendant was struck off and he was proceeded Ex Parte, no opportunity was afforded by my Ld. Predecessor to the defendant to lead his evidence. Moreover, there was no effort by or on behalf of the defendant to either cross examine the plaintiff on legally permitted aspects nor any evidence on legally permitted aspects has been lead by the defendant.
5. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by Advocate Sh. O.P. Gupta, ld. counsel for the plaintiff and have also carefully perused the material as placed on record. It would be pertinent to mention even at the cost of repetition that the defence of defendant is already struck off and he has also been proceeded Ex Parte by Ld. Predecessor and even none on behalf of the defendant has argued the case.
6. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has also submitted that the plaintiff is the owner of suit property vide Conveyance Deed Ex.PW1/1 which he let out to the defendant vide Rent deed Ex.PW1/2, however, after expiry of period on 31.12.09, the defendant did not vacate the suit property and thereafter, as per an oral agreement between them, the defendant agreed to vacate the suit property by 31.03.10 and also agreed to pay rent of Rs.22,000/ Suit No.350/10 .............5/9 6 p.m. w.e.f. 01.01.10. He has further argued that in the meantime, the defendant, without seeking permission of the plaintiff or without informing him had sublet the said premises in the month of March, 2010 and thereafter, when the plaintiff served him a legal notice asking him to hand him over the vacant possession of the suit property, the defendant did not respond. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has prayed that in the given circumstances, the decree as prayed in the plaint be passed in favour of plaintiff.
7. As per record, the plaintiff has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the defendant has preferred not to cross examine him on any aspect whatsoever and has preferred not to rebut or to challenge the version of the plaintiff on any ground whatsoever. The testimony of the plaintiff has accordingly remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and unchallenged on all material aspects.
The plaintiff vide his affidavit Ex.PA, has reiterated the averments as made in the plaint and has also mentioned about the renting the suit premises to the defendant from 01.02.2009 to 31.12.09 on rent @ Rs.20,000/ p.m. in which regard, he has also proved on record the copy of Conveyance Deed as Ex.PW1/1 and Suit No.350/10 .............6/9 7 has proved the Registered Rent Agreement executed between them on 13.02.09 as Ex.PW1/2. He has also mentioned that on expiry of said period on 31.12.09, the said tenancy has come to an end by afflux of time but the defendant did not hand him over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property despite repeated requests of the plaintiff and thereafter, an oral agreement was entered into between them whereby the defendant had agreed to pay Rs.22,000/ p.m. w.e.f. 01.01.2010 till 31.03.2010 and the defendant had also agreed to vacate the suit property positively on 31.03.2010, however, the plaintiff, in the first week of April, 2010, came to know that the defendant had sublet the suit premises to other person namely Manpreet Singh in March, 2010 without even intimating the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also proved on record Ex.PW1/3 as the document regarding issuance of cheque Nos. 093691, 093692, 093693 dt. 01.10.09, 01.11.09 & 01.12.09 respectively by the defendant. He has also proved on record the copy of legal notice dt.03.04.10 which was sent to the defendant U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act as Ex.PW1/4, Postal receipt as Ex.PW1/5, AD card as Ex.PW1/6 and UPC receipt as Ex.PW1/7.
In the present case, the testimony of plaintiff has Suit No.350/10 .............7/9 8 remained uncontroverted, unrebutted, and unchallenged on all material aspects and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his version or the documents placed on record by him. The affidavit of plaintiff has been corroborated on essential particulars by the documentary evidence placed on record and there is no reason as to why the case of plaintiff be disbelieved.
8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in view of material as placed on record and in view of aforesaid discussion, a decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit property bearing property No.1/69, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi along with rent of Rs.22,000/ for the month of April, 2010. The plaintiff has not been able to show as to how he is claiming damages @ Rs.30,000/ p.m. w.e.f. 01.05.2010 as admittedly as per oral agreement, the tenancy of the defendant was extended till 31.03.2010 at monthly rent of Rs. 22,000/ pm. The plaintiff has not been able to place anything on record to claim an exaggerated amount @ Rs.30,000/ p.m. Accordingly, a decree of damages is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant whereby the defendant is directed to pay damages regarding suit property @ Rs.22,000/ Suit No.350/10 .............8/9 9 p.m. w.e.f. 01.05.2010 till the actual possession of the suit premises is delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant. Cost of suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. It is also directed that the amount of Rs.60,000/ which was received by the plaintiff as 'Advance' from the defendant would also be adjusted against the rent and damages as awarded by the court as mentioned herein above. Accordingly, the suit is disposed off. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary formalities.
Announced in the open court (Barkha Gupta) today i.e.10th April, 2012. ADJ - 03 (West)/Delhi Suit No.350/10 .............9/9