Delhi District Court
The vs Creative Wares Ltd." Reported on 10 December, 2019
Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH.MANISH YADUVANSHI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No : 1355/2018
SH.GHANSHYAM DASS SAKKARWAL
son of late Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sakkarwal
resident of House No.5850 (first floor)
Gali No.6, Block 4-B, Dev Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005 .....Plaintif
VERSUS
MISS SHITU VERMA
daughter of Sh.Babu Ram Verma
resident of House No.5850 (third floor)
Gali No.6, Block 4-B, Dev Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005 ...Defendant
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT
INNUNCTION AND RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF
RENT AND DAMAGES/MESNE PROFIT
Date of Institution of the suit :18.4.2018
Date on which judgment was reserved :10.12.2019
Date of decision :10.12.2019
Result:Suit decreed Page 1 of 21
Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of possession, permanent injunction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit with the averments that the plaintiff being the absolute owner of the property bearing No.5850, Gali No.6,Block 4B, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005, let out third floor thereof to the defendant at the monthly rent of Rs.25,000/ for a period of 12 months from 15.1.2017 to 14.1.2018 by virtue of a lease deed duly registered in the office of the Sub RegistrarIII, Delhi on 18.1.2017. It is also averred that the defendant was to pay the electricity charges as per actual consumption reflected in the meter/submeter and was to vacate the suit property upon expiry/termination of the agreement in terms of the lease deed.
2. At the time of taking the premises on rent, the defendant had made a security deposit of Rs.50,000/ vide cheque dated 01.10.2017 drawn on Axis Bank.
3. It is further averred that prior to expiry of the lease period in terms of the lease deed dated 18.1.2017, the plaintiff specifically told the defendant that he did not want to keep the defendant as Result:Suit decreed Page 2 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 tenant after the expiry of the rent agreement but the defendant did not pay any heed to the same and did not vacate the premises even after the expiry of three months even after the lease period being over on 14.1.2018.
4. In such circumstances, upon failure of the defendant to vacate the premises upon expiry of the lease period, the plaintiff got issued legal notice date 08.2.2018 through counsel but the defendant even refused to accept/take delivery of the said notice.
5. It is also averred that after termination/expiry of the lease period the defendant has become an illegal and unauthorized occupant in the suit property and as a result of failure of the defendant to vacate the same despite service of the legal notice, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.5,000/ per day as penalty since the date of filing of the suit till the date of handing over the possession of the suit property.
6. As per the plaintiff, if the defendant succeeds in her nefarious designs of creating third party interest in the suit property, the very purpose of filing the suit would be frustrated.
Result:Suit decreed Page 3 of 21Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018
7. Making reference to legal and technical pleadings qua cause of jurisdiction, valuation of the suit and territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs
(i) decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant, her agents, servants, assigns, employees, executors, representatives etc from trespassing or intervening any portion of the property in question and/or from selling, transferring or creating any kind of third party interest in the suit property i.e. third floor of the aforesaid property bearing No.5850, Gali No.6,Block 4B, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005, area measuring 75 sqyds shown in red colour in the site plan;
(ii) decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property i.e. third floor of the aforesaid property bearing No.5850, Gali No.6, Block 4B, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005, area measuring 75 sqyds shown in red colour in the site plan;
(iii) decree of Rs.75,000/ for arrears of rent for three months (i.e. January 2018 to March 2018) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum;
(iv) decree of damages/use and occupation charges in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant at the rate of Result:Suit decreed Page 4 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 Rs.5,000/ per day since the date of filing of the suit till the handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff along with pendente lite and future interest;
(v) Besides costs of litigation and any other relief as deemed fit and proper by this Court.
8. Summons for settlement of issues were ordered to be issued to the defendant and the defendant being served on 23.4.2018 put in appearance through her uncle/representative Sh.Ashok Kalra on 21.5.2018 and subsequently, on 26.7.2018, the defendant appeared through counsel Ms.Sunita Chaubey. By the said date, the maximum time prescribed for filing the written statement being over and the defendant having defaulted in filing the written statement, right of the defendant to file written statement was closed vide order dated 26.7.2018 and thereafter the defendant did not appear even to participate in the subsequent proceedings.
9. In support of the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :
(a) Site plan Ex.PW1/1
(b) Copy of the lease deed dated 17.1.2017 as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) Result:Suit decreed Page 5 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018
(c) Returned Envelope with AD card as Ex.PW1/3 (collectively); and
(d) Legal notice dated 08.2.2018 along with postal receipt as Ex.PW1/4 (collectively) No further/other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and in view of the statement dated 03.10.2019 of the plaintiff, evidence of the plaintiff was closed.
10. I have heard Sh.R.S.Kansotia, Advocate for the plaintiff and have gone through the record.
11. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is sole and absolute owner of the property in question. However, ownership documents are not filed. The plaintiff is required to prima facie prove that he is entitled to the relief of possession as claimed. The lease deed Ex.PW1/2 is a registered instrument duly registered with the Sub RegistrarIII, Dev Nagar, Delhi on 17.1.2017. A recital is made therein that the first party/landlord i.e. the plaintiff herein is the lawful owner of the entire third floor (without roof rights of terrace) of property No.5850, Gali No.6, Block No.4B Dev Nagar Karol Bagh, Delhi i.e. the suit property. It is plaintiff's case that the defendant had been paying rent in accordance of the terms of the lease deed besides electricity charges.
Result:Suit decreed Page 6 of 21Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 He also pleads that a sum of Rs.50,000/ was deposited as Security by the defendant vide cheque dated 01.10.2017 drawn on Axis Bank, Delhi. As per the plaintiff, the defendant is also in arrears of rent for the months of January, February and March 2018. The relevant clause of the Security Deposit i.e. Clause 23 of the lease deed affirms payment of the sum of Rs.50,000/ by RTGS.
12. Clause 4 of the lease deed provides for termination before expiry of the lease period which is not the case here. As per clause 3(a), the agreement was for 12 months only commencing from 15.1.2017 and terminating on 14.1.2018. It is in the testimony of PW 1 that the plaintiff had specifically told the defendant before the expiry of the lease period that he does not want to continue with the defendant's tenancy after lapse of time of the lease period. The date of termination of the lease is 14.1.2018.
13. A legal notice dated 08.2.2018 was sent to the defendant vide Speed post and the returned envelope is Ex.PW1/3. It bears endorsement of the Postman dated 09.3.2018 i.e. "refused". The date of dispatch of the notice is 08.3.2018. The address provided on the envelope is the same as is provided on the memo of parties. The Result:Suit decreed Page 7 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 defendant was duly served on this address on 23.4.2018. The legal notice is Ex.PW1/4 and is in accordance of what has been pleaded and proven by PW1 on oath. The notice contains clear statement that the defendant was clearly told that she will not be retained as tenant after expiry of the lease period. The termination of the tenancy, in the absence of renewal of it and it not being the case that the defendant continued to occupy the premises as a month to month tenant after the date of expiry i.e. 14.1.2018, is automatic.
14. Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows :
"Section 111 - Determination of Lease A lease of immovable property determines
(g) by forfeiture, that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may reenter; or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; or (3) the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re enter on the happening of such event; and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease".
15. The notice to determine the lease has to be in writing. However, it would pertain to determination of lease prior to its expiration by efflux of time. Section 111(a) of the Act says that "A Result:Suit decreed Page 8 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 lease of immovable property determines - (a) by efflux of the time limited thereby". Hence, in this case, the tenancy ceased to exist by efflux of time and even if the plaintiff had not given oral or written notice of his intention, then also, the plaintiff's claim will remain unaffected.
16. In law, either there is a tenancy for a specified period in terms of a duly registered lease deed and in which case, the tenant would have protection for the period of lease or if there is no registered lease deed for the leased premises, then the tenancy will be on month to month basis. Reference may be had in this regard to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 25.3.2011 in RFA No.179/2011 titled M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd v M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & anr. Thus, the question of applicability of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not arise here.
17. In this regard, reference may also be had to the judgment in the case titled "SCJ Plastics Ltd. Vs. Creative Wares Ltd." reported as 192 (2012) Delhi Law Times 237, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sh. Valmiki J. Mehta, wherein it has been held that, "even if, the notice of termination of tenancy is defective and strictly not in accordance to Result:Suit decreed Page 9 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, then filing of the suit itself amounts to a notice of termination of tenancy to the other party. Therefore, the plaintiff is presumed to have expressed his desire not to continue with the defendant any further who is tenant in the suit property in question. Hence, he/she is liable to be evicted and vacate the premises within reasonable time."
18. Reference may be also had to the judgment in Payal Vision Ltd. Vs. Radhika Choudhary, Civil Appeal No. 6734 of 2012, decided on 20.09.2012. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, "In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the Plaintiff landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
19. In the judgment titled as MEC India Pvt Ltd v Lt Col. Inder Maira reported as (1999) 80 DLT 679, the Hon'ble High court of Delhi observed Result:Suit decreed Page 10 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 "....55. In a suit for ejectment, all that the court is required to examine is whether on a calendar date representing the expiration of a particular tenancy month, the defendant tenant's status becomes one of a tenant at sufferance or it continues as one from monthtomonth. There is really nothing else to be tried in such a suit. A suit of this variety could in most cases be decided at the first hearing itself either on the pleadings or documents as was done by a Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Sachdeva v Kajakhstan Investment Services Ltd Volume 66 (1997) DLT 54..."
20. It being the case and considering that entire testimony of PW1 is unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontested, the plaintiff proves his entitlement towards the relief qua clause (a) as well as (b) of the plaint.
21. The testimony of the plaintiff that the defendant is in arrears of rent for three months i.e. January 2018 to March 2018 at the rate of Rs.25,000/ per month has also remained unchallenged. However, as per his own case, the tenancy terminated on 14.1.2018. As per clause 1 of the lease deed, the rent was payable on 15th day of Result:Suit decreed Page 11 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 the month by each English Calendar in advance. This would imply that there is no pleading or evidence that the defendant did not pay rent for the month of December by 15th of November, 2017. There is also absence of pleading that the defendant never paid the rent for the month of January 2018 in advance by 15th day of December 2017. It is still claimed that the defendant is in arrears of rent for the months of January, February and March 2018 and therefore a decree for Rs.75,000/ with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum is prayed.
22. As the tenancy terminated on 14.1.2018, it can not be said that the defendant is in arrears of any "rent" as it is further not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant ever became "a tenant by sufferance"
or "a tenant by month to month". At best, the prayer clause (c) seeking for decree of Rs.75,000/ claiming it as "arrears of rent" can only be considered to be the "charges for damages/use and occupation" of the demised premises post 14.1.2018.
23. However, such damages are separately prayed by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.5,000/ per day from the date of suit till handing over of the possession of the demised premises along with interest. If such value is vet by the plaintiff at Rs.5,000/ per day, then for a month it comes out to be Rs.1,50,000/ which is much against the Result:Suit decreed Page 12 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 admitted rate of rent i.e. Rs.25,000/ per month.
24. In my considered view there is no harmony between prayer clauses (c) and (d) of the plaint.
25. First and foremost, it is pertinent to point out the statutory provisions in this respect. Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as to what are mesne profits and stipulates that mesne profits in respect of a property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of the property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received together with interest on such profits but such profits shall not include the profits made due to improvement by the person in wrongful possession. Order XX Rule 12 of CPC further provides for the judgment and decree which a Court may pass in a suit for possession and mesne profits and stipulates that the Court may in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profit may pass a decree for possession, arrears of rent and for mesne profits either directly or by holding an enquiry under Clause "C" of such Rule. In this regard, the pivotal question which is to be determined in the instant case is the day on which the occupation of the defendant in respect of the suit property has become wrongful and unauthorized. Accordingly, 15.1.2018 is taken as date of reckoning in Result:Suit decreed Page 13 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 this case in terms of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act and in view of pronouncement of law laid down in AIR 1994 ALL.221 titled Punjab National Bank v Ganga Narain Kapur. The Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1977 SCC 2270 titled Shyam Charan v Sheoji Bhai has held that once a tenant become unauthorized occupant after termination of tenancy, a decree of damages and/or mesne profit can be passed against her.
26. One may argue that since the defendant has become unauthorized occupant w.e.f 15.1.2018, she is bound to pay the market rate for determination of rent which the plaintiff is entitled to receive. In AIR 2000 Allahabad 249 titled Sushil Sharma v 13th Addl District Judge, it has been held that where the tenancy is governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, the damages can be awarded to the lessor at market rate. In 1993 RLR 563 titled Bakshi Sachdev v Concord International our own High Court has clearly held that damages and mesne profits for occupation of the premises after termination of tenancy can be awarded at a rate higher than the agreed rate of rent. The aforesaid proposition of law has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 808 titled Union of India v Wing Commander R.r Hingorani.
Result:Suit decreed Page 14 of 21Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018
27. It is settled law that once a contract does not fructify the mesne profits which are to be calculated, are as per the market rate of rent as prevailing in the area. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in suit for Possession decided on 5.3.2012 in RFA No. 568/2011 titled Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd v Basant Khatri.
28. It is also settled law that in suit for Possession when no evidence is led by the landlord in respect of in increase of rent then a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that increase of rent in and around Delhi which is a State of growing importance being the capital of the country is rising staggeringly. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rattan Arya Etc v State of Tamil Nadu & Anr" reported as AIR 1986 SC1444. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Vinod Khanna & Ors v Bakshi Sachdev (Deceased) through LRs and others reported as AIR 1996 Delhi 32. This Court also places reliance on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Consept Pvt. Ltd v SEPCO Industries Pvt. Ltd reported as 2010 (116) DRJ 539 wherein, in respect of Order 20 Rule 12 CPC it has been held that award Result:Suit decreed Page 15 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 mesne profits which is within the discretion of the Court either to direct an inquiry to be held into the quantum of mesne profits or assess the same in its discretion, having regard to the evidence on record.
29. In this case, there is no evidence led to show the calculation of damages at the rate of Rs.5000/ per day. No other lease deed has been produced with respect to similar property in the adjoining area to determine as to how much rent a property situated on the third floor and admeasuring 75 sqyds would fetch post 15.1.2018 and till today. Apart from oral testimony of PW1, there is nothing on record regarding determination of quantum of damages/user charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/ per day and that too, as a "penalty".
30. However, it is not out of place to mention that the plaintiff will be entitled to receive at least 10% enhancement of rent if the lease agreement was renewed for any further period post 14.1.2018. In the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 30.5.2008 titled as Shakti Vats v Dr.Fatrima Raza being RSA No.136/2008 as well as the judgment dated 31.1.2013 in RFA (OS) 118/2011 and CM No.6572/2012 titled Fab India Overseas Pvt Ltd v S.N.Sheopori, it is observed that the Court may very well take judicial notice of enhancement of rent by 10 to 15 per cent ever year and the plaintiff may Result:Suit decreed Page 16 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 be awarded damages/mesne profits accordingly.
31. Further, in AIR 2000(Allahabad) 249 titled Sushil Sharma versus 13th Addl.Distt Judge, it is held where a tenancy is governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, damages can be awarded to the lessor at the market rate. In 1993 RLR 563 titled Bakshi Sachdev v Concord International, our own High Court has clearly held that damages and mesne profits for occupation of the premises after termination of tenancy can be awarded at a rate higher than the agreed rate of rent. The aforesaid preposition of law has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 808 titled UOI v Wg Cdr RR Hingorani.
32. In Shakuntala Devi v Central Bank of India reported as 2014(3) CLJ 427 (Del), a 15 per cent increase over admitted rent payable on termination of tenancy and further increase of 15 per cent cumulatively every year till handing over of possession of the subject premises was considered to be awarded as mesne profits/damages
33. In Rattan Arya etc etc v State of Tamilnadu & anr reported as AIR 1986 SC 1444, it is held that the Court can take judicial Result:Suit decreed Page 17 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 notice under Section 57 of the Evidence Act of enormous manifold increases of rent throughout the country, particularly in urban area.
34. In the context of Delhi, it is held in Vinod Khanna & ors v Bakshi Sachdev (deceased) through LRs & ors reported as AIR 1996 Delhi 32 that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that increase of rent in and around Delhi which is city of growing importance. Reference was made to the judgment of Apex Court in D.C.Oswal v V.K.Subbiah reported in AIR 1992 SC 184 where even the Apex Court had taken the judicial note of the fact of universal escalation of rent and even raised the rent of the disputed premises by taking such judicial notice in the said case.
35. In Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd v Basant Khatri decided on 05.3.2012 by our own High Court in RFA No.568/2011, it is clearly observed that once contract does not fructify, the mesne profit, which are to be calculated, are as per market rate of rent as prevalent in the area.
36. Having regard to the law on the above subject; the fact that the plaintiff has led no evidence to sustain claim of damages at the Result:Suit decreed Page 18 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 rate of Rs.5,000/per day; the fact that the plaintiff is claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/ as arrears of rent instead of damages, and in all facts and circumstance of this case, it is to be held that the total claim as in prayer clause (c) and (d) is actually towards damages/mesne profits post 14.1.2018. The claim amount has been bifurcated by the plaintiff and there is no coherence in such bifurcation.
37. The suit property is a residential property and no commercial use of the property is shown to exist. Clause 5 of Ex.PW 1/2 prescribes that the premises are rented out for residential purposes only. This property is ad measuring 75 sqyds and shown so in the site plan Ex.PW1/1. It is a three bed room property besides other necessary constructions. It is situated in Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh which is a congested area nearby famous Karol Bagh Market.
38. In my considered view, there could have been a rise of at least 10 per cent in the rental value if the property was further let out post 15.1.2018. Such amount comes to Rs.25,000/ per month plus increase of 10 per cent for the first year i.e. from 15.1.2018 to 14.1.2019 thereby totaling to Rs.27,500/ and further increase on it at the rate of 10 per cent for the next year commencing from 15.1.2019 till expiration thereof and so on till recovery of possession.
Result:Suit decreed Page 19 of 21Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 RELIEF
39. In the result, (a) the defendant is restrained by way of decree of permanent injunction along with her agents, servants, assigns, employees, executors, representatives etc from trespassing or intervening any portion of the property in question and/or from selling, transferring or creating any kind of third party interest in the suit property i.e. third floor of the aforesaid property bearing No.5850, Gali No.6, Block 4B, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005, area measuring 75 sqyds shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/1;
(b) a decree of possession in respect of the above note property as described and shown in red in the site plan Ex.PW1/1 is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
(c) a decree of damages/use and occupation charges/mesne profits is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from 15.1.2018 to 14.1.2019 at the rate of Rs.27,500/ per month thus totaling Rs.3,30,000/ and further increase on it, at the rate of 10 per cent for the next year commencing from 15.1.2019 till expiration thereof at the rate of Rs.30,250/ per month and so on till recovery of Result:Suit decreed Page 20 of 21 Ghanshyam Dass Sakkarwal v Miss Shitu Verma CS 1355/2018 possession, as on 10.12.2019 i.e.10 months and 25 days totaling Rs.3,27,528/ (Rs.30,250/ x 10 months and 25 days). {total decretal amount is Rs.3,30,000/ plus Rs.3,27,528/ = Rs.6,57,528/ minus Rs.50,000/ security deposit = Rs.6,07,528/}.
(d) So far as interest is concerned, the plaintiff is also awarded interest on the above decretal amount at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the dates the amounts as above fell due till recovery of possession.
The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly in the above terms after payment of requisite Court Fees.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open (MANISH YADUVANSHI)
Court on 10.12.2019 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-11
CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Result:Suit decreed Page 21 of 21