Delhi District Court
Sh. Sukesh Chand Gupta vs Sh. Krishan Kr. Goel on 20 July, 2013
In the court of Ms. Ina Malhotra, Additional District JudgeI
New Delhi District : Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
Suit No. 17/11
(ID No. 02403C0007032011)
Sh. Sukesh Chand Gupta
S/o Late Sh. T.C. Gupta
R/o E505, Narwana Apartment
Plot No. 89, I.P. Extension
Delhi. .....Plaintiff
V E R S U S
Sh. Krishan Kr. Goel
Proprietor of M/s Gupta Bros.
Shop No. 5253, Plot No. 7
205C, Bengali Mal Market
New Delhi - 110 001. .....Defendant
Plaint presented on : 31.01.2011
Arguments concluded on : 08.07.2013
Judgment on : 20.07.2013
J U D G E M E N T
The plaintiff has filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC praying for passing of a decree.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the Suit No. 17/11 Page 1 of 10...
owner/landlord of property/shop bearing no. 5253 on Plot No. 7, Bengali Mal Market, New Delhi. The defendant through his predecessorininterest is a tenant therein. The defendant who admits paying rent to the plaintiff stopped paying rent after 31.01.2004. The plaintiff has alleged that at that point of time, the rate of rent was Rs. 3,000/ per month. After serving a legal demand notice, the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act being No. E44/09. The said petition is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the said petition, a legal notice as contemplated under Section 6(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to increase the rent by 10%. Though, the said notice was duly served, the defendant failed to increase the rent. The plaintiff's case is that that the statutory rent as on 01.09.2007 stood enhanced to Rs. 3,300/ per month. The said rent was again enhanced by 10% to Rs. 3,630/ per month after issuance of due notice in September 2010. It is further the plaintiff's case that as the present rate of rent is Rs. 3,630/ per month, the suit property is no longer within the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act and after terminating the tenancy of the defendant vide their legal Suit No. 17/11 Page 2 of 10...
notice dated 16.12.2010, he has filed the present suit for possession. The plaintiff has also sought mesne profits and damages for the defendant's continuation in the suit premises after termination of the tenancy.
3. The defence put forth by the defendant is with respect to the maintainability of the present suit before a Civil Court being barred under Section 50 of the DRC Act. The defendant has vehemently denied that the rent last paid was at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ per month. It is their submission that the rent was Rs. 1,000/ per month. Given the circumstances, on each statutory enhancement, the rent could at best be Rs. 1,210/ per month. The defendant has opposed the plaintiff's prayer for passing a decree for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
4. The plaintiff has endeavoured to show that the admitted rate of rent last paid by the defendant was at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ vide documentary evidence and therefore in terms of section 6(a) of the DRC Act, the same stood statutorily increased to Rs. 3,300/ and Rs. 3,630/ w.e.f. 2007 and 2010 respectively. The plaintiff has alleged that the current rate of rent to be Rs. 3,630/ per month and therefore the suit property is beyond the Suit No. 17/11 Page 3 of 10...
purview of DRC Act.
5. For adjudication of a case of possession, the only three relevant factors to be determined are a tenantlandlord relationship, its due determination provided the tenant does not enjoy any statutory protection under the DRC Act. Though the defendant disputes the plaintiff's ownership of the property in view of attachment/reentry by the Government Authority, he admits the tenantlandlord relationship as he has been giving the rent to the plaintiff. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only point to be adjudicated is the present rate of rent, which as per the plaintiff is apparent from the receipts and documents on record.
6. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the documents on record speak for themselves. Various rent receipts have been relied upon to corroborate the last paid rent by the defendant as Rs.3000/ per month. The counter signatures of the defendant on these rent receipts are duly admitted by the defendant. The details of the rent receipts are enlisted as below :
Suit No. 17/11 Page 4 of 10... Receipt Date Cheque Rate of Period No. of Total no. No. rent months Amt.(Rs) 51 23.05.01 949751 51/ 01.04.1999 to 612/ 31.03.2000 12 23.05.01 51/ 01.04.2000 to 612/ 52 949752 31.03.2001 12 23.05.01 1000/ 01.04.2001 to 3000/ 53 949753 30.06.2001 3 30.03.02 1000/ 01.07.2001 to 9000/ 57 566694 31.03.2002 9 1000/ 01.04.2002 to 3000/ 59 09/07/02 364961 30.06.2002 3 28.04.02 1000/ 01.07.2002 to 3000/ 61 193519 30.09.2002 3 20.12.02 1000/ 01.10.2002 to 3000/ 65 458861 31.12.2002 3 1000/ 01.01.2003 to 1000/ 68 05/02/03 460952 31.01.2003 1 25.02.03 1000/ 01.02.2003 to 1000/ 71 461484 28.02.2003 1 31.03.03 1000/ 01.03.2003 to 1000/ 72 464910 31.03.2003 1 30.07.03 3000/ 01.04.2003 to 9000/ 77 468715 30.06.2003 3 31.07.03 3000/ 01.07.2003 to 3000/ 78 468716 31.07.2003 1 25.10.03 01.08.2003 to 9000/ 80 476270 3000 31.10.2003 3 12.11.03 3000/ 01.11.2003 to 3000/ 83 475816 30.11.2003 1 12.01.04 3000/ 01.12.2003 to 3000/ 84 481487 31.12.2003 1 12.01.04 3000/ 01.01.2004 to 3000/ 85 484314 31.01.2004 1 Suit No. 17/11 Page 5 of 10...
7. All the aforesaid payments were made by the defendant vide cheques. The plaintiff has filed the paying slips evidencing payment in their account through the aforesaid cheques. Photocopies of the cheques have also been filed which record the receipt no. and the period for which the rent was given. The bank statement has also been filed showing receipt of the amount under the cheques.
8. The defendant does not deny these payments or the countersigning on the receipts, but submits that payments were made in advance to be appropriated at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per month.
9. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed specific reliance on certain receipts to substantiate the rate of rent as Rs.3000/ pm and demolish the stand adopted by the defendant. These are:
Cheque Dated Period Rate Total 30.07.2003 April - June'03 Rs. 3000/ Rs. 9,000/ 31.07.2003 July 2003 Rs. 3000/ Rs. 3,000/ 21.10.2003 Aug - Oct.'03 Rs. 3000/ Rs. 9,000/ 12.11.2003... November'03 Rs. 3000/ Rs. 3,000/ 15.12.2003 December' 03 Rs. 3000/ Rs. 3000/ 06.01.2004... January 2003 Rs. 3000/ Rs. 3000/ Suit No. 17/11 Page 6 of 10...
10. The defendants submission is sought to be demolished by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff by pointing out the rent paid vide cheque dated 30th July 2003 for Rs.9000/ was for the month of April to July 2003. On the very next day, the defendant issued a cheque dated 31st July for Rs.3000/ as rent for the month of July 2003. It would be beyond any comprehension and explanation as to why the defendant would pay another cheque on the very next date, if the rents were as advance payments @ Rs.1000/ per month.
11. According to the defendant, the said cheques had been paid in advance upto September 2005. The submission of the defendant does not have legs to stand upon and is palpably false, raised only with a view to confound issues and prolong adjudication in the case. The documents speak for themselves. The oral testimony cannot be considered in the light of these documents which clearly specify the period and the last rent. The defendant has countersigned the receipts in acknowledgment of the correctness of the document. Nothing that the defendant would say as oral testimony could negate the documentary evidence which clearly points that the rate of rent paid for the Suit No. 17/11 Page 7 of 10...
month of January 2004 was at the rate of Rs. 3,000/pm. The defendant has not paid any rent thereafter. Keeping in view the statutory provision for increasing the rent by 10% every year, the current rate of rent amounts to Rs. 3,630/pm. Necessary notices for compliance under Section 6(a) of the DRC Act have admittedly been given and are supported by the original postal receipts on record. So is the legal notice dated 16.12.2010 with its original receipt on record terminating the monthly tenancy of the defendant. As per a catena of judgments, there is nothing left for a notice to be proved through trial, if the original postal receipt s are on record.
12. As the rate of rent is more than Rs. 3,500/ per month, the suit premises is not covered under the DRC Act. The tenantlandlord relation is not disputed and the monthly tenancy has been legally terminated. The power to decree a suit under order 12 R 6 CPC is discretionary. Failure to exercise this judicial discretion at the appropriate time would be an aberration of justice, procrasting a decision on facts which speak for themselves.
13. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore decreed for Suit No. 17/11 Page 8 of 10...
possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for possession in respect of property/shop bearing no. 5253, Block No. 7, Bengali Mal Market, New Delhi. Decree sheet be prepared. Announced.
(Ina Malhotra) Addl.District Judge1 New Delhi District : PHC New Delhi :20.07.2013.
Suit No. 17/11 Page 9 of 10...
Suit No.17/11
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Vide separate Judgment, a decree of possession is passed under order 12 R 6 CPC.
With respect to the quantum of arrears of rent and liability towards mesne profits and damages, the following issues are being framed :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit and damages? If so, at what rate and for which period?
As the aforesaid issue is more by way of enquiry, both parties are at liberty to file documents to throw light as to what would be the prevalent market rent in respect of the suit premises. List this case for the same on 08.08.2013.
Announced (Ina Malhotra) Addl.District Judge1 New Delhi District : PHC New Delhi :20.07.2013 Suit No. 17/11 Page 10 of 10...