Delhi District Court
Shree Chand Goyal vs Pramod Verma on 2 November, 2015
In the Court of Virender Kumar Goyal
Additional District Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
RCA No.34/15
Unique Case ID No.02402C0193862015
In the matter of:
1. Shree Chand Goyal
s/o Shri Puran Chand Goyal
2. Smt Kavita Goyal
w/o Shri Shree Chand Goual
both r/o D111/A, Shakarpur,
Delhi110 092. .....Appellants/defendants
Versus
Pramod Verma
s/o Shri S S Verma
r/o D111/A, Shakarpur,
Delhi - 110 092. ......Respondent/Plaintiff
Date of institution : 01.06.2015
Arguments heard on : 26.10.2015
Date of Judgment : 02.11.2015
J U D G M E N T
1. This is an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.4.2015 passed by the court of Ms Shuchi Laler, Sr. Civi Judge/Rent Controller(East), KKD,Delhi.
RCA: 34/2015 1 of 10 2. Notice of the appeal was served to the respondent and the
respondent has put his appearance through his counsel.
3. The record of the trial court is also requestioned and perused.
4. I have heard the ld.counsel for the appellants and respondent.
5. The appeal has been filed on certain grounds challenging the impugned judgment and decree. It is contended that the ld. Trial court would have decided issue no.1 in favour of defendants and would have held that the suit is barred u/s 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is further contended that the ld. Trial court would have held that the defendants are the tenants in the property in dispute @ Rs. 3000/ per month and the provisions of the DRC Act are applicable to the tenancy premises and further contended that there was no material available with the ld. Trial court to come to the conclusion that the rate of rent of the property is Rs. 8000/ per month. It is further contended that the respondent had not issued any rent receipt to the appellants and in the absence of rent receipt, there is no other material available on record, except the testimony of the respondent. It is further contended that the ld. Trial court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 8000/ per month.
6. It is further contended that the ld. Trial court ought to have held that PW2 and PW3 have stated in their examination that they are not issuing any rent receipts to the tenants and in the absence of RCA: 34/2015 2 of 10 any rent receipts, the testimony of DW1 and DW2 ought to have been believed by the ld. Trial court.
7. It is further contended that the ld. Trial court erred in holding that the rent has been paid till December,2014 u/s 22 DRC Act and has wrongly mention that the rent has been deposited u/s 27 of DRC Act. It is further contended that the ld. Trial court without any evidence on the record has decided that two rooms in the locality of Shakarpur cannot be taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 3000/ per month. It is also contended that the ld. Trial court has also erred in holding that the respondents are entitled for the relief of injunction, although no evidence has been led by the respondent and has wrongly held that the defendants are liable to pay damages @ Rs. 56,000/ being arrears of rent w.e.f. May2012 to November2012 and thereafter, the damages from December2012 till vacation of the premises and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.4.2015.
8. Suit for recovery of possession, rent and damages and permanent injunction was filed, wherein the defendants have raised certain objections regarding the jurisdiction of the court. The appellants are claiming the rent of the suit property to be of Rs. 3000/ per month, hence, the proceedings were liable to be filed if any before the ARC/RC. Whereas, the respondent is RCA: 34/2015 3 of 10 claiming the monthly rent to be of Rs. 8000/ per month.
9. To prove this fact, respondent had examined himself as PW1. According to his cross examination, he has let out the property to the appellant no.1 and has denied that property was let out to the appellant no.2. According to the evidence brought on record, no rent agreement was executed by the parties. Nor, rent receipt was issued by the respondent. PW1 has denied the suggestion that rate of rent was Rs. 3000/ per month and electricity charges were also fixed as Rs. 500/ per month and water charges were also fixed as Rs. 100/ per month. He has also denied that defendant no.1/appellant no.1 has paid the rent upto November 2012. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that appellants were demanding Rs. 10 lakhs to vacate the suit property and a complaint was also given to the police on 12.1.2013.
10.It was also alleged that electricity was disconnected by the respondent to vacate the suit property. Whereas, in the cross examination, it is stated by the PW1 that electricity was disconnected by the electricity department for non payment of the electricity charges.
11.PW2 Mahesh Kumar Verma has also been examined, who is knowing the appellants earlier to their becoming tenants of the respondent. According to PW2, earlier appellants were residing at Master Block, Shakarpur, where PW2 used to go to do work RCA: 34/2015 4 of 10 being electrician. According to his deposition, the rent of the suit property was settled as Rs. 8000/ per month and electricity charges were payable according to the sub meter reading and water charges were fixed at Rs. 200/per month.
12.According to the cross examination of PW2, appellants came into tenancy in May2011 and the parties entered into the lease agreement on oral terms in his presence. It is further stated in cross examination that monthly rent was fixed of Rs. 8000/ per month between the parties. So, merely he is not having any knowledge that rent was not paid to the respondent by the appellants, is not a material fact. The testimony of PW2 remained unshaken about the settlement of the tenancy orally and the rate of rent is Rs. 8000/ per month and further electricity charges will be payable according to the sub meter and water charges were fixed at Rs. 200/ per month.
13.PW3 is Sheela Chauhan. She is known to the respondent and according to her examination, the appellants came to the suit property in May2011. She use to sit in the office of the plaintiff, being old lady. According to her cross examination, in her presence appellant no.1 Srichand had paid the rent on 23 occasions and he used to pay the rent @ Rs. 8000/ per month. The appellant no.1 also used to pay electricity charges, as per the sub meter reading and water charges of Rs. 200/ per RCA: 34/2015 5 of 10 month. She has also stated in her cross examination that rent has been paid by the appellants to the respondent till May2012 only. So, from the deposition of PW3 which also remain unshaken, plaintiff has been able to prove that not only rent was settled of Rs. 8000/ per month, but it was paid by the appellants in her presence to the respondent. Beside, electricity charges, as per sub meter, water charges were fixed at Rs. 200/ per month.
14.On the other hand, both the appellants had examined themselves as DW1 and DW2. Appellant no.2 Smt Kavita Goyal had admitted in her cross examination that they used to reside at Master Block165, Shakarpur, Delhi and owner of the said property was Shri Subhash Pradhan,which corroborated the PW2, who has stated that appellants were known to him previously. In the cross examination, appellant no.2 has also claimed the tenancy with the appellant no.1 and stated that they used to pay Rs. 2000/ as rent to the previous landlord and the previous tenancy was comprised of one room, one kitchen, one latrine and common lobby and further claimed that rent for the month of December,2012 has also been paid in cash.
15.Similarly, appellant no.1 has been examined as DW2, who has also admitted that earlier landlord was Subhash Pradhan. He has also admitted that he used to pay the rent of the suit property to the respondent, which itself shows that both the appellants were RCA: 34/2015 6 of 10 not tenant and only appellant no.1 was tenant in the suit property. In the cross examination, appellant no.1 has failed to produce any document to prove that rent of the suit property was Rs. 3000/ per month.The suit property which has now been let out to the appellants is comprising of one room, one kitchen, one bathroom, one drawingcumdining room. So, the previous rent which was being paid was for lessor accommodation and deposition of DW1 to the extent that rent was Rs. 3000/ per month cannot be accepted for the present suit property. More so, no document has been brought on the record or oral evidence to the extent that earlier the appellants were paying rent of Rs. 3000/ per month to the previous landlord Shri Subhash Pradhan.
16.Notice was served to the appellant no.1 dated 30.11.2012 sent through speed post is Ex.PW1/C. Complaints were also been given by the respondent against the appellants to the police for causing harassment. In the said notice Ex.PW1/C, the rent was claimed from May2012 till November2012 with electricity and water charges. No reply to this notice has been given by the appellants. It is settled proposition of law that if the notice is served on a person and no reply has been given, then the same amounts to admission on the part of the said person.
17.So, according to the evidence brought on record by the
RCA: 34/2015 7 of 10
plaintiff and other witnesses examined on behalf of the
plaintiff, rent, electricity and water charges are due since May2012. Whereas, according to the cross examination of PW3, she has stated that rent has been paid upto May2012, which shows that the appellant no.1 was not in arrears of rent from May2012, but appellant no.1 was in arrears of rent from June2012 till November2012.
18.In the cross examination, one speed post receipt has been shown to PW3 Ex. PW3/D1, which shows that the money order value of Rs. 3000/ allegedly sent to the respondent on 18.12.2013. So, no inference can be drawn from that money order to the extent, as to whether it was rent tendered from June onwards or for particular month. Even after receiving the notice, appellant no.1 failed to deposit the alleged rent, as claimed by him u/s 27 of DRC Act and further no independent witness was examined on behalf of the appellants to prove that rate of rent was Rs. 3000/ per month. Whereas, respondent has been able to examine the independent witness to prove the rate of rent and payment of the same. In these circumstances, the ld. Trial court has fairly and reasonably appreciated the evidence in favour of the respondent.
19.During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the appellants has contended that the ld. Trial court had traveled beyond the RCA: 34/2015 8 of 10 scope of the suit and observed at page no. 9 of the impugned judgment that the averments as reflected in the petition u/s 27 of DRC Act, can certainly not be relied upon. Ld.counsel for the appellant has further contended that ld. Trial court further observed that rent of Rs. 3000/ was deposited by the appellants for the month of January2013 to December2014 u/s 27 of D R C Act is also beyond the scope of the suit, as the appellants have no where alleged these facts and it is not known, from where these facts have appeared in the impugned judgment.
20.It is further contended that whatever rent has been deposited, was deposited by the order of the court during the trial of the suit and no rent was deposited u/s 27 of D R C Act. There is no such averment in the affidavit of the appellants. Nor any document was deposited or has been brought on record by the appellants. So it is not known from where these facts were incorporated by the ld. trial court. However, these facts have no bearing on the judgment of the ld. Trial court and merely on these facts alone, it cannot be said that the ld.trial court failed to apply it's mind, while passing the judgment.
21. While allowing the suit, the ld. trial court decreed the suit in respect of the possession of the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs. 8000/ per month from May2012 till RCA: 34/2015 9 of 10 December2012.
22.So far as, the claim about the rent is concerned, according to cross examination of PW3, the rent has already been paid till May2012. So, it was due from June2012 only. According to the notice dated 30.11.2012, the tenancy of the appellant was terminated. So, this relief is modified. The respondent is entitled to recover the arrears of rent @ Rs. 8000/ per month from June2012 till December2012. The ld. Trial court also fixed the damages @ Rs.8000/ per month from 1.1.2013 till the vacant possession of the suit property is handed over to the respondent. I see no ground to interfere in the rate of damages, so the same is upheld as it is.
23.In view of above, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.4.2015. Accordingly, appeal being merit less is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record room. The record of the trial court is ordered to be returned.
Announced in the open Court on: 02.11.2015 ( Virender Kumar Goyal ) Additional District Judge01 (East)/KKD/Delhi RCA: 34/2015 10 of 10 RCA: 34/2015 11 of 10