Delhi District Court
M/S Banwari Lal & Sons vs M/S M.G. Sahani & Company on 7 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR
CIVIL JUDGE 05: (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 789/10
Unique ID No.
M/S Banwari Lal & Sons, Pvt. Ltd.,
R/o 3703, Chawri Bazar,
Delhi06.
.............Plaintiff
Versus
M/S M.G. Sahani & Company, Pvt. Ltd.,
R/o 34B, Cannaught Place,
New Delhi01.
(Service may be effected through its Director or
Secretary or Incharge of the defendant)
.............Defendant
Date of filing : 01.07.1995
Date on which order has been reserved : 30.04.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 07.05.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for the following reliefs:
(a) To pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the premises at 57, Najafgarh Road Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.1/38 (Rama Road), Delhi more clearly shown in the red line of the plan filed here.
(b) To pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 50,000/ in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant along with cost of the suit.
(c) To pass a decree of future mesne profits/damages @ Rs. 50,000/ per months w.e.f. 01.05.1995 till handing over the vacant possession of the above said premises.
2. Plaintiffs Version: In the present suit, plaintiff stated that the plaintiff is private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at the above said address and is filing the suit through its duly authorized Director Sh. Radha Kishan Dass who is competent and authorized to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff and sign and verify the plaint. The defendant occupied the portion of the premises at 57, Najafgarh Road (Rama Road), Delhi (hereinafter referred the suit property) by way of warehousing arrangement and have been paying Rs. 14,480/ per month as storage charges to the plaintiff every month. The said arrangement commenced from 1st day of each English Calender month and ends on the last date of the same English Calender month. The defendant claimed himself to be the tenant in the suit property and have been depositing the amount of the monthly rate in the Income Tax. In the Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.2/38 Income Tax Department as according to him, the said amount has been claimed by the Income Tax Department. The plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendants to vacate the suit property and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, but of no effect. The plaintiff accordingly, issued registered AD notice dated 15.02.1995 terminating the above said tenancy of the defendant and requested the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff by 31.03.1995 be as unauthorized occupant and the defendant shall be liable to pay damages @ Rs. 50,000/ per month. The said notice dated 15.02.1995 was duly served on the defendant on 23.02.1995 but inspite of service of the said notice, the defendant did not vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Defendant is thus liable to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Defendants are also liable to pay damages @ Rs. 50,000/ per month in respect of the suit property as the defendants are illegally, unauthorizedly occupying the suit property without any right and consent of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant's Version: During court proceedings, defendant was allowed to file amended WS vide order dated 01.07.2004. In WS, defendant has denied all the claims of the plaintiffs on the following grounds:
(i) The plaint as framed does not state the relationship of Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.3/38 landlord and tenant but states that the defendants occupied a portion of the suit property by way of warehousing arrangement and have been paying Rs. 12,480/ per month as storage charges every month. Thus, this suit for possession on the facer of it is not maintainable under the Transfer of Property Act.
(ii) It is without prejudice submitted that though in the said document dated 09.06.1975 the words "Storage Arrangements" have been mentioned but inf act it was a tenancy created in favour of the defendant vifde the said document dated 09.06.1975 and the words "Storage Arrangements" were merely stated as camouflage but in reality the defendants were let the premises in suit as a tenant and the defendants have through out in occupation of the suit property as a tenant. The defendants subject to this objection and confirming their status as a lawful tenant in the suit property without prejudice submits that this suit as framed by alleging the occupation of the defendants as warehousing arrangement is liable to be dismissed.
(iii) In the plaint through out the plaintiff has not alleged themselves as landlord having the relationship of landlord and tenants. Thus, this suit for possession on the face of it is not maintainable.
(iv) No alleged notice of termination of tenancy dated 15.02.1995 was served on the defendants as required under Section 196 of Transfer of Property Act and subject to this plea it is without prejudice submitted that Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.4/38 the alleged notice is even otherwise not a legal and valid notice as subject to clause 10 of the document dated 09.06.1975 it was specifically agreed that the defendants will give at least six months notice in advance for terminating this arrangement and if they failed to give the said notice then will be liable to pay six months minimum storage charges and in case the plaintiff terminates this arrangement without any fault on the part of the defendant and without giving reasonable notice, the plaintiff would pay the damages to the defendants to the extent of Rs. 50,000/. Thus, subject to this clause, the defendants submit that notice should have been given by the plaintiff for at least six months in advance for terminating the alleged arrangement, but the said notice dated 15.02.1995 was not of the agreed period of six months and as such the said notice is not a legal and valid notice.
(v) The tenancy of the defendants is perpetual and permanent one and the plaintiff has got no right terminate the tenancy of the defendants in respect of the suit property. Even after the alleged termination by virtue of the notice dated 15.02.1995 the defendants have been depositing the rent in the account of the plaintiff in the Income Tax Department and the instructions had alread7y been given to the defendants that the Income Tax Officer had desired that the payment be made directly to them. The plaintiff requested the defendants to pay the amount directly for credit to the account of the plaintiff with the Income Tax Department. Since the Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.5/38 defendants had made the payment of rent in the account of the plaintiff and as such the notice dated 15.02.1995 stood waived.
(vi) Since the tenancy of the defendants was created on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,700/ to which the plaintiff alleges as warehousing charges, the increase of rent from Rs. 7,700/ to Rs. 12,480/ per month is contrary to the provisions of Sections 4 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the plaintiff is not entitled to make the claim of any amount above the figure of Rs. 7,700/ per month. The claim of the amount as damages at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ per month for alleging the status of the defendants as illegal and unauthorized on the face of it is not maintainable as the defendants are in possession as a lawful occupant as a tenant and the plaintiff is not entitled to make the claim over the figure of Rs. 7,700/ as initially agreed when the possession was delivered to the defendants in June, 1975 and nor this plaint disclose how this figure of Rs. 50,000/ per month has been brought about by the plaintiff.
(vii) The defendants do not admit the plaintiff as the owner of the premises in suit as the plaintiff never showed the title deeds to the defendants in respect of the premises in suit.
(viii) The provisions of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 are discriminatory and are in violation of the fundamental rights of the defendant and the limit of the rent exceeding Rs. 3,500/ per month of the premises for the purpose of excluding the same from the applicability of Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.6/38 the premises of the Delhi Rent Control Act, violative of the fundamental rights of the defendants and this Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is violative of the Constitution of India. The defendants are lawful tenants in respect of the suit property.
(ix) The defendants do not admit Sh. Radha Krishan Dass is authorized to file this suit on behalf of the plaintiff company and sign and verify the plaint nor this suit disclose about any resolution having been passed in favour of Sh. Radha Krishan Dass authorizing him to file this suit. The suit property is situated in an industrial area and was given to the defendants for manufacturing purpose and for that reason giving of six month's advance notice for terminating the arrangement was agreed and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as alleged notice referred in the plaint was by mentioning the arrangements of storage charges from 1st day of each English Calender month ending with the last day of the same English Calender Month.
4. Replication: By way of replication, plaintiff has denied all the claims of the defendants.
5. On the basis of pleadings and arguments of the parties, vide order dated 25.04.2001, the following issues have been framed: (I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the portion shown red line of premises bearing No. 57, Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.7/38 Najafgarh Road?OPP.
(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 50,000/?OPP.
(III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/profits @ Rs. 15,000/ per month w.e.f 01.05.1995?OPP.
(IV) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties?OPD. (V) Whether the suit has not been filed by authorized person? OPD.
(VI) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of para No. 5 of WS?OPD.
(VII) Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD.
(VIII) Any other relief.
6. To prove his case, plaintiff has examined Sh. Radha Krishan as PW1 and Sh. K.L. Pandey as PW2 and plaintiff has relied upon the following documents:
(i) The certified copy of incorporation is Ex. PW1/1.
(ii) The extract of minute book is Ex. PW1/2.
(iii) The carbon copy of legal notice is Ex. PW1/3.
(iv) Postal receipt is Ex. PW1/4.
Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.8/38
(v) AD card is Ex. PW1/5.
(vi) Site plan is Ex. PW1/6.
7. On the other hand, in his defence, defendant has examined Sh. Kapilendu Advani as DW1, Sh. Ashok Lalchandani as DW2 and Sh. S.L. Dhir as DW3 and defendant has relied upon the following documents:
(i) Copy of resolution dated 03.05.2006 is Ex. D1.
(ii) Document dated 09.06.1975 is Ex. DW1/1.
(iii) Copy of driving license of DW2 is Ex. DW2/1(OSR).
(iv) Assessment of property is Ex. DW2/1.
(v) Report of assessment of the disputed property is Ex. DW3/1.
8. The final arguments have been concluded from both the sides on 05.05.2014.
9. My Issue Wise Findings: (A) For the sake of convenience, the issue No. 1 to 3 are decided together.
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the portion shown red line of premises bearing No. 57, Najafgarh Road?OPP.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 50,000/?OPP.
Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/profits @ Rs. 15,000/ per month w.e.f 01.05.1995?OPP.
Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.9/38
(i) The onus to prove these issues is upon the plaintiff. To prove the same, plaintiff has examined Sh. Radha Krishan as PW1 and during examination in chief by way of affidavit, he has reasserted the facts mentioned in the plaint. During examination in chief, he has deposed that ".............I am one of the director in the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company duly incorporated under the Company Act. The certified copy of the incorporation of the plaintiff company is Ex. PW1/1. A resolution for filing the suit against the defendant was passed by the plaintiff company. I have brought the original minute book. The extract of the relevant proceedings held on 02.051995 is Ex. PW1/2 and is correct as per original. The original minute book is signed by me as well as Sh. Krishan Dass another director of the plaintiff company. I identify my signature on the original as well as of the resolution in the plaintiff company is of two director. I have been duly authorized to file the suit on behalf of the company. The plaint is signed and verified by me and identify my signature on plaint. The vakalatnama is also signed by me as director of the plaintiff company........ The premises in suit was given to the plaintiff for storing their goods in 1975. The defendants have been paying Rs. 12,480/ per month on account of storage charges before the filing of the suit. The defendant has been claiming themselves as a tenant and accordingly paid Rs. 12,480/ per month as rent to the plaintiff. The tenancy month of the plaintiff commence from 1st day of every English Calender month and ended on the last of the same English Calender Month. The plaintiff issued a registered AD notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The carbon copy of the notice got issued by the plaintiff through counsel is Ex. PW1/3. I identified the signatures of my counsel on Ex. PW1/3. Ex. PW1/4 is the postal receipt. Ex. PW1/5 is the AD duly signed by the defendant and is also having their stamp. The defendant did not vacate the premises after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice inspite of repeated request by me to Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.10/38 the defendant. The occupation of the defendant after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice in the notice is illegal and unauthorized w.e.f 01.04.1995. The plaintiff has claimed Rs. 50,000/ per month for the unauthorized use and occupation for the use and occupation for the said premises. The said premise can fetch more than Rs. 50,000/ per month in the area. We have got the plan of the premises in suit was prepared which is signed by me. The portion in occupation of the defendant is shown in red line which is Ex. PW1/5 (objected to). The defendants have not paid the amount of damages for 01.04.1995 to 30.04.1995 at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ per month till date.........."
(ii) PW1 was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he has deposed that "..........I have not brought the articles and memorandum of Association of the plaintiff company. I have no document with me to show that I am director of the plaintiff company except a minute book. We are five directors of the plaintiff company, only two directors including myself attended the board meeting held on 02.05.1995. NO consent was taken from any other director to file the suit. There is a Corum of two directors of holding any meeting. Infact, that fact has been mentioned in the memorandum of articles which I have not brought today. Minutes of this meeting was approved in the next meeting held on 01.09.1995. This minute book is in the handwriting of Sh. Devki Raman. He is in Delhi and in the member of staff........At the time when the premises in suit was given to the defendant, warehouse arrangement was made with the defendant. At that time, the minimum amount agreed to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff was Rs. 7,700/ per month. This amount was being charged as storage charges for storing the goods by the changed as storage charges for storing the goods by the defendant. At the end of the month, we used to calculate the limit of storage charges but minimum storage charges we used to get Rs. 7,700/ but this minimum Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.11/38 figures of Rs. 7,700/ of storage charges was never increased to Rs. 7,700/. Thereafter, the amount never varied. There was a clause in the warehousing arrangement that after 10 years, the figure of storage charges would increase and subject to that clause of the warehousing arrangement by virtue of this figure of Rs. 12,480/................I was not present t the time when the postman took the notice Ex. PW1/3 to the defendant. So, I can not say who receive the notice on behalf of the defendant. I can not identify the signatures on Ex. PW1/3 but it bears the stamp of office of defendant. I can not say the person who signed the acknowledgment Ex. PW1/5 was the employee or director of the company as this receipt was not signed in my presence.............I can not say whether this notice was registered on the same day when it was written................I have seen the storage arrangement letter dated 09.06.1975 which is correct and bears my signatures, the same is Ex. PW1/D1. I have also seen the letter dated 12.12.1984 which is signed by me and the same is Ex.
PW1/D2............No rent agreement was executed the defendant nor any rent receipt was ever executed by us. No agreement relating to relationship of landlord and tenant was executed between the parties. It is correct whenever the arrangement was to be terminated as per Ex. PW1/D1, six months notice was required to be given. We have given notice for termination for six months. The notice given by us is dated 14.03.1994 requiring to vacate before 01.04.1994, the same is Ex. PW1/D3. This notice is not for a period of six months...........We have issued the notice to the defendant for termination of tenancy because the defendant alleged themselves to be tenant in the premises in question. There was one tenant Voltas under Hnand Raj Gupta Co. just opposite to the premises in the suit but I can not tell the number of property. I can not say what is extent of accommodation with them and during which period to which period they were the tenant but their rent was about Rs. 15 per Sq. Feet. It is incorrect to suggest that rent was not Rs. 15 per Sq. Feet. I have no document with me either the rent deed or rent receipt to show that the rent was Rs. 15 per Sq. Feet. I have not seen the rent deed or rent receipt but I have talked to the landlord.........There is another tenant namely Vikas Motors in this Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.12/38 area but I do not know the number of property not the particular of that and the rent was Rs. 15 per Sq. Feet per month. But I have not seen the rent deed nor the rent receipt and nor I can tell the period from which period they are tenant but they are still the tenants...............The construction of the property of the said tenants are of the same period of the premises of defendant.................I have no documents with me to show the rents in the locality such as rent deed and rent receipt. Vol. I have brought the guide to House Tax in Delhi of the year 1999 which shows the rates of Najafgarh Zone for commercial purposes is Rs. 30 Per Sq. Feet which is published by the MCD. Rama Roads comes in the Kirti Nagar area where the commercial rate is show Rs. 36 Per Sq. Feet.............There is no mention of Rama Road in the book which I brought today when the property in question is situated...........In 1995 the value of this property should have been more than Rs. 25,00,000/.
(iii) Further, plaintiff has examined Sh. K.L. Pandey as PW2 and he was deposed that "..........Property No. 34, Najafgarh Road, Rama Road is property of M/S H.G. Gupta & Sons and the premises has been let out to M/s Vikas Motors Ltd at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,20,000/ per month in February2000 and earlier the same property was let out in the year 1998 at the monthly rent of Rs. 2,36,964/ per month and the said premises contained of 6,500/ covered area at the rate of Rs. 16 Sq. Feet per month, open space 18,000/ Sq. Feet at the rate of Rs. 3 per Sq. Feet per month and basement 9870 Sq. Feet at the rate of Rs. 9 per Sq. Feet............"
(iv) PW2 was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he has deposed that "........I have no written authority letter authorizing me to Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.13/38 supervise the properties of H.G. Gupta & Sons. I have brought a attorney in my favour which shows that I am the employee of plaintiff.........I have no rent receipt pertaining to the year 1975 with respect to 34 Najafgarh Road. In the year 1975, the rent deed or the term of the tenancy with respect to 34 Najafgarh Road or the suit property were not settled in my presence. I am not aware on what terms and conditions, the property was let out to the defendant........I have not seen the suit property from inside. I can not say whether it is a showroom. The area of the property opposite to property No. 34 Najafgarh Road, I can not say whether the area of suit property is the same or not. From outside, 34 Najafgarh Road and Suit property's construction appear to be same. The showroom of M/S Vikas Motors was constructed in February, 2000. Vol. Only the showroom was constructed in February2000..........It is incorrect to that monthly rent in the area is about Rs. 1 to 1.5 per Sq. Feet. I can not tell the rent of other properties in the area. I have no knowledge that buildings in the area which are let out at Rs. 1 pet Sq. Feet..........."
(v) On the other hand, defendant has examined Sh. Kapilendu Advani as DW1 and during examination in chief, he has reasserted the facts mentioned in WS and he was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he has deposed that "...........I am the executive director of M/s M.G. Sahni and Company Delhi Ltd since 16.10.2002. The above said company was incorporated in approximately 1948. I was not working in this company prior to 2002. I do not know when the defendant company was incorporated........It is wrong to suggest that I am not aware about the facts before my appointment. Vol. I have knowledge from official records only. I have not seen the original document dated 09.06.1975 as referred by me in my affidavit. I do not remember the period mentioned in the document dated 09.06.1975. I do not know uptill which the arrangement as mentioned in document dated 09.06.1975 Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.14/38 continue. Vol. According to me, it is still a storage arrangement........The document dated 09.06.1975 was for a period of 10 years. In the year 1984, an extension was granted to the earlier agreement and the said extension was also in writing. The extension was for further 10 years......We used to store our goods in the demise premises. We used to keep record of the goods stored therein. We were not tenants, we had storage arrangement/agreement with the plaintiff. The tenure of the agreement has already been mentioned by me and the same was extendable by mutual agreement......The content of para No. 8 of the affidavit is wrongly written. I have no idea as to what is the rent as on date prevalent in the area as we have already left the premises and handed over the possession to the plaintiff........It is correct to suggest that we have not carried out manufacturing activities. I can not recall immediately if we were prevented from carrying out manufacturing as per the agreement.........."
(vi) Thereafter, the opportunity to lead additional evidence was granted to the defendant and defendant and during additional evidence, DW1 was duly cross examined and during cross examination, DW1 has deposed that "...........I have not seen the area for last three years, therefore, I do not know who is in occupation of the property in front of the property in question....The property is in slum as people are defecating and urinating and throwing garbage infront of the gate of the property in question..........I have filed a notification mentioned by me in para No. 2 of my affidavit and the copy of same is Ex. DW3/Y (Colly)..........I can not say anything to the suggestion that the area of the property No. 54 is around 5000 Sq. Yards. I do not know if the defendant's company was ever a tenant in a portion of property No. 54 Rama Road. Vol. I am telling the situation since my joining of the company in 2002. The last rent paid for disputed property is January, 2012 was Rs. 13 odd Rupees. It is wrong to suggest that last Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.15/38 paid rent of the disputed property was Rs. 13,500/ per month. I have not brought any record regarding the payment of the said rent but I can bring the same..........The suit has been filed by the plaintiff in 1975.. It is correct that the charges of the property in question at that time was Rs. 12,500/ per month. We have given an increase in rent of 2.5% ever year so as to off set any inflation and this was given as per terms which we had with the plaintiff in our agreement............."
(vii) Further, defendant has examined Sh. Ashok Lalchandani as DW2 (An Architect) who has given report of assessment of property. As per report of assessment, "..........The property was visited by DW2 first time in September, 2006 when defendant was using the premises as warehouse but the conditions of the warehouse were very bad due to leakage and seepage of water through roof and DW2 advised defendant company that repair work is required but defendant company informed DW2 that they do not have permission to repair the roof and the landlord is not allowing access to the roof for any kind of repair and DW2 again visited the premises in April2008 when defendant company informed him that premises has been vacated as landlord refused to give permission to repair the premises and it was informed to DW2 by defendant's company that premises has been returned to the landlord and is continuing to be in a derelict and vacant condition and DW2 further depose in his report that the property is of very low utility and value and can fetch a small fraction of prevalent market rent in the area........"
(viii) DW2 was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he has deposed that "...........It is correct that the premises in dispute is situated in Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.16/38 industrial area. There are few industries all around. The premises in question was being used as warehouse.......There is no contract enter between me and the defendant for inspection. I was contacted by the defendant but there was no contract with the defendant........I was informed by the defendant that aluminum lying on the roof belongs to the landlord. I have not made any personal inquiry regarding as to whom the aluminum waste belongs...........I do not know when the premises was surrendered by the defendant but I was told about this fact only last year. I do not know the market rate of the property in question and about the area around the property in question........"
(ix) Further, defendant has examined Sh. S.L. Dhir as DW3, who had given assessment report (Ex. DW3/1) of the property. According to which, the property can not fetch fare rent more than Rs. 15 to 17 thousand per month in 1995. DW3 was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he has deposed that "...........I have valued market value of 1995. I have considered the value of the premises in respect of the all rent agreements and also contacted before property dealer of area and also the condition existing a site...........While assessing the value of the property, we do not consider the market value of the particular locality as the same is not required for the preparation of the said report.........I know that the portion which was in occupation of the defendant. I can not tell the exact measurement of the said portion because the portion was locked from outside........The information was collected from the representatives of the firm and visual inspection of the portion from outside.........The sanitary installation mentioned at point B in para No. 19(o) of Ex. DW3/1 is the sanitary installation installed inside the portion in possession of the defendant. I have mentioned the same on the basis of information received from representatives of defendant firm. All the details given at serial 19 at Ex. DW3/1 are on the basis of Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.17/38 information received from representative of defendant firm. All the information given in my report are on the basis of information given by the representative of the defendant firm..........I have not brought the data and information given by the representatives of the defendant firm to me because as I have already mentioned that the same was given me verbally and not in writing..........I have not examined the property to find out how many gates are there of the whole property including the portion in question............As far as the current market rent is concerned, I have not prepared the report regarding the same nor I can say anything about the same.........."
(x) In the present suit, as per plaintiff, defendant occupied the suit property by way of warehousing arrangement and have been paying Rs. 12,480/ as storage charges to the plaintiff and the arrangement was monthly arrangement. But defendant claimed itself to be a tenant in the Income Tax Records and despite request by the plaintiff, defendant failed to vacate the property and, therefore, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 15.02.1995 whereby terminating the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f 31.03.1995 and directing the defendant to vacate the property and in case of failure to vacate the property, to pay damages @ Rs. 50,000/ per month from 01.04.1995 till the vacation of the property. But inspite service, defendant failed to comply with the notice, hence, the present suit.
(a) It is also argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant has taken alternative pleas in the WS but even if the agreement on which defendant has relied, is taken into consideration, even then contract cannot be for in definite period. Moreover, in para no. 4 and 8 of the amended Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.18/38 WS, defendant himself has admitted the tenancy of plaintiff and the rate of rent is Rs. 12,480/ and the premises has been let out for the purpose of storage of goods. So the tenancy is not covered under the DR Act. The plaintiff has terminated the tenancy vide legal notice dated 15/02/1995 which was duly served upon the defendant. In the notice, plaintiff has clearly mentioned that tenancy stands terminated from 31/03/1995, and in case of failure of defendant to vacate the property by 31/03/1995, defendant will be liable to pay damages @ 50,000/ per month from 01/05/1995 till handing over the property to plaintiff. Plaintiff has examined its AR as PW1 who has supported the case of plaintiff and his testimony has stood up to cross examination. Further, plaintiff has examined PW2 who has supported the case of plaintiff and has duly proved that the property just opposite to the suit property is fetching rent of Rs. 2,36,690/ in the year 1998 and is fetching rent of Rs. 6 Lakhs per month in the year 2000. On the other hand, defendant has examined its AR as DW1 who could not prove any defence of defendant. As far as additional affidavit of DW1 is considered, same is beyond pleadings and should not be read in evidence. Similarly, architect's testimony as DW2 is also beyond pleadings and is irrelevant all together and similar is the position of testimony of DW3. Thus, defendant has failed to prove any defence and the suit is liable to be decreed and considering the fact that the suit has been filed in 1995 and also considering the facts and Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.19/38 circumstances of the case, the claim of plaintiff as damages @ 50,000/ per month is very reasonable, Further, plaintiff has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi i.e M/S M.C. Agrawal HUF Vs. M/S Ahara India & Ors, RFA Nos. 458/2011 & 457/2011.
(xi) On the other hand, defendant submitted that the plaintiff had failed to disclosed the exact legal status of defendant and if as per plaintiff, the defendant has occupied the property under warehouse arrangement. The suit is not maintainable in view of the Transfer of Property Act and moreover, the premises was taken for the purpose of manufacturing, therefore, in view of Section 196 of Transfer of Property Act, notice of six months is required. Further, defendant has taken alternative plea that even if the document dated 09.06.1975 mentioned the word storage arrangement but infact, tenancy was created in favour of the defendant and, therefore, the defendant is lawful tenant of the plaintiff and no notice of termination of tenancy dated 15.02.1995 has been served upon the defendant. Further, even after alleged termination, when defendant paid the rent in account of plaintiff in Income Tax Department as per instructions of the plaintiff, therefore, the notice dated 15.02.1995 stands waived off and a new tenancy has been created in favour of the defendant and increase of rent from 7,700/ to Rs. 1,2480/ is contrary to DRC Act.
(a) It is also argued on behalf of the defendant that it is settled principle that plaintiff can not take alternative plea while defendant is Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.20/38 permitted by CPC to take alternative plea in the WS. As per plaintiff in the plaint, defendant is just a licensee not a tenant and if defendant is just a licensee, then as the property was given to defendant for manufacturing purpose, the license can not be terminated without notice of 6 months as per Section 196 of Transfer of Property Act. Further, the way in which plaint has been framed, it does not completely disclose whether defendant is a tenant or a licensee under warehouse agreement. Further, the warehouse arrangement is not required to be registered as only tenancy agreement is required to be registered. Further, in para No. 3 of the plaint, plaintiff has stated that defendant has claimed himself to be a tenant in Income Tax Record but no evidence has been filed by plaintiff to support his averments. As per defendant, defendant is not a trespasser as claimed by plaintiff but only a tenant holding over the tenancy but notice of termination of tenancy has not been served upon the defendant. Further, if as per plaintiff, defendant is an unauthorized and illegal occupant, then the suit is not maintainable as in that case plaintiff is required to value the suit at market value and is required to pay advolerum court fees on the relief of possession. Further, if the defendant is tenant as admitted by plaintiff, then plaintiff is required to seek relief of mesne profits after inquiry under order 20 rule 12 CPC but plaintiff has failed to follow the procedure of inquiry under order 20 rule 12 CPC and, therefore, relief of damages as prayed by plaintiff can not be granted. It is further argued that plaintiff has Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.21/38 accepted the enhanced rate even after notice dated 15.02.1995, so a denovo tenancy has been created in favour of the defendant and this new tenancy has never been terminated by the plaintiff, so no damages can be granted to plaintiff. Further, even if taken that tenancy has been terminated, then as per the procedure to determine the damages, the court has to consider the contract between parties. Therefore, the renewal agreement between plaintiff and defendant i.e Ex. PW1/2 is the criteria to calculate the damages as the damages can not be awarded beyond the terms of contract between parties. Further, even if taken that tenancy has been terminated property and plaintiff is entitled to relief of damages/mesne profits, then plaintiff has not lead any specific evidence to support his relief while defendant has produced all the plausible evidence to prove his defence and defendant has also produced the document to show that the condition of suit premises is very bad and is not in a position to be occupied and the property has been surrounded with slums and, therefore, the property in slum can not fetch the rent which the property is commercial complex can fetch. Defendant has relied upon the judgment Ganapati Madhav Sawant (Dead) Through is LRs Vs. Dattur Madhav Sawant, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 22.01.2008 in SLP (C) No. 18522 of 2004.
(b) In rebuttal, plaintiff has argued that acceptance of rent after termination of tenancy is not a renewal of tenancy in view of Section 113 Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.22/38 of Transfer of Property Act and plaintiff has relied upon the judgments i.e C. Albert Morris Vs. K. Chandrasakaran & Ors 2005(2) RCJ 148 S.C and M.R. Sahni Vs. Mrs. Doris Randhawa, AIR 2008 Delhi 110. It is further argued that as far as the procedure of inquiry under order 20 rule 12 CPC is concerned, inquiry is required only when there is no evidence on record but when evidence is there, there is no requirement of any inquiry. Further, testimony of DW2 is immaterial as he has trying to depose about the standard rent in 2012 while the suit has been filed in 1995 and there is no evidence of survey of DW2 before 2012. Further, Ex. PW1/D2 is not a renewal agreement but a simple letter and it does not renew the tenancy and even if it was tenancy, plaintiff has duly terminated the tenancy of the defendant by serving legal notice.
(xii) I have heard the arguments and have perused the record as well as the judgments relied upon by the parties.
(xiii) It is well settled rule of law that in civil cases the burden of proof upon the plaintiff is preponderance of probabilities i.e after considering the evidence lead by both the parties, the court has to weigh in whose favour the probabilities lie or in other words whose version seems to be more probable. Further, it is also well established legal principle that the onus to prove its case is always upon the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs.
Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.23/38
(xiv) Admittedly, plaintiff and defendant entered into warehouse arrangement vide agreement dated 09.07.1975 (Ex. PW1/D1) for 10 years and the same was extended for other 10 years vide agreement dated 12.12.1984 (Ex. PW1/ D2) (though plaintiff has denied the said document in replication) but it was admitted during evidence.
(xv) Defendant has taken plea that the plaintiff has not disclosed the legal status of defendant. As per plaintiff, warehouse arrangements were made but defendant claimed himself to be a tenant in the Income Tax Department at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,2480/, therefore, plaintiff terminated the tenancy vide legal notice dated 15.02.1995. In the WS, defendant also claimed the same that he is tenant of the plaintiff and the agreement between parties mentions the terms warehouse arrangement just for the sake of name and defendant also admitted that even after notice dated 15.02.1995, defendant had been depositing the rent in account of plaintiff in the Income Tax Department as per instructions of the plaintiff. In view of the admission of the defendant, it is clear that plaintiff has been able to prove that warehouse arrangement was entered into between parties and at the time of filing of the suit, the defendant used to pay Rs. 1,2480/ as storage charges but defendant had been depositing the amount as a rent in the account of plaintiff in the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the plea of the defendant that plaintiff has not filed any document to show that "The defendant claimed himself to be a tenant in the premises and have Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.24/38 been depositing the amount of monthly rate in income tax department", is not sustainable.
(xvi) Further, during examination in chief in DE, DW1 has reiterated the facts stated in the WS and has submitted that the possession of the defendant is of lawful tenant but in cross examination, DW1 has stated that "......We were not tenants, we had storage arrangement/agreement with the plaintiff........The content of para no. 8 of affidavit is wrongly written....." Thus, the defendant has taken contradictory stands i.e contradiction in the averments of the WS and of the evidence, therefore, the testimony of DW1 does not fetch much credence.
(xvii) Further, even if it is considered that defendant has always occupied the premises under warehousing arrangement, then admittedly last warehouse agreement was dated 12.12.1984 (Ex. PW1/D2) for the period of 10 years from the date of letter i.e the arrangement was effective only till 11.12.1994 and admittedly, thereafter, no further arrangement/agreement has been entered into between parties and, therefore, after 11.12.1994, the possession of the defendant became as of leasee under the monthly lease which is terminable with the notice of 30 days as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Now, the defendant can not claim the protection of terms of agreements i.e Ex. PW1/D1 and Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.25/38 Ex. PW1/D2 as these were not in operation after11.12.1994. Further, even if as per plea of defendant, these agreements are taken into consideration that as per clause No. 2 of Ex.PW1/D2, the arrangement was for period of 10 years from the date of letter and thereafter, the defendant was to remove the goods without any notice by the plaintiff to the defendant, therefore, as per agreement between parties, even the notice of 30 days was not required.
(xviii) Further, defendant has taken plea in the WS that the premises was taken for the purpose of manufacturing, therefore, in view of Section 196 of Transfer of Property Act as well as in view of DRC Act, the notice of 6 months was a mandate upon the plaintiff but during cross examination, DW1 has admitted that "......We used to store our goods in the premises............It is correct to suggest that we have not carried out manufacturing activities. I can not recall immediately if we were prevented from carrying out manufacturing as per the agreement............" Thus, admittedly, the premises was not given for the purpose of manufacturing but for the purpose of storage of goods only and, therefore, the objections of the defendant is not sustainable. Thus, plaintiff has been able to prove that defendant came into the possession of the property under the warehouse arrangement and later on, the warehouse arrangement expired by efflux of time and defendant deposited amount of Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.26/38 Rs. 1,2480/ as rent in the account of plaintiff and thus, became the tenant of the plaintiff and the tenancy was monthly tenancy for the purpose of storage of goods by the defendant.
(xix) Now, the defendant has taken plea that the notice of termination of tenancy was not served upon the defendant. As far as the service of notice is concerned, it has been settled by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in various judgments i.e M/S Jeevan Diesels & Electrical Ltd. Vs. M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 2011 (182) DLT 402, Sh. Ashwani Bhatia Vs. Sh. Suresh Rastogi, DOD 10.04.2012 in RFA No. 167/2012 and C.M.No. 6164/2012 and Sh. Sharwan Aggarwal Vs. Kailash Rani, DOD 09.01.2012, "even if it is not proved that a legal notice was served prior to filing of the suit, service of summons of the suit can be taken as a notice U/sec 106 of the Transfer of Property Act."
Therefore, the plea of the defendant that notice has not been served upon the defendant is also not sustainable.
(xx) It is settled principle that in a case for possession and arrears of rent and damages and mesne profits, on the basis of landlord tenant relationship, plaintiff is required to prove following three ingredients i.e
(a) Landlord tenant relationship exists between plaintiff and defendant.
(b) The tenancy has been duly terminated. Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.27/38 (c) The rate of rent is above Rs. 3,500/ and DRC Act has not application to the suit property.
In the present suit, plaintiff has been able to prove all the three ingredients, therefore, (xxi) As far as possession is concerned, the possession has already been handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant on 25.01.2012 during court proceedings. Now, the only issue remains to be decided is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages @ Rs. 50,000/ per month since 01.04.1995 till handing over the vacant possession of the property. To prove it, plaintiff has examined PW1 who has claimed damages @ Rs. 50,000/ per month w.e.f 01.04.1995 in examination in chief but during cross examination, PW1 has admitted that he has not filed any document to show the rents in the locality wherein the suit property is situated. Further, plaintiff has examined Sh. K.L. Pandey as PW2 to prove that the monthly rent of similar premises is Rs. 7,20,000/ per month in February, 2000 and in 1998, the rate of rent of the same premises was Rs. 2,36,960/ per month but during cross examination, he has admitted that he has not brought any rent receipt nor he has filed any document to support his averments and further he admitted that the premises which he mentioned in his examination has been constructed in February, 2000 and is also a showroom situated on the main road nor he has visited the suit property nor he was aware about the purpose of letting out the suit property to Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.28/38 defendant. Therefore, his testimony is of no help to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not examined any other witness to substantiate his claim of recovery of damages @ Rs. 50,000/ per month from 01.04.1995.
(xxii) On the other hand, defendant has led an additional evidence to prove that property can not fetch the rent of Rs. 50,000/ per month whereby DW1 has deposed that the suit property has become a slum and is surrounding by public toilet and big garbage dump and photographs Ex. DW1/X1 (colly) have been filed. But this additional evidence is not of any help of defendant as it is showing the status of the property in 2014 while the suit has been filed in 1995 and the court has to consider the market rent of the property since 1995 or at the time of filing of the suit and it is also relevant to mention here that defendant has vacated the property in 2012 and defendant is showing the status of the property even after his vacating of the property and, therefore, the same is not relevant. (xxiii) Further, defendant has examined Sh. Ashok Lalchandani an Architect as DW2 who has given his assessment report of property, dated 26.08.2012 (Ex. DW2/1) to prove that the suit property is in a derelict and poor condition due to seepage and leakage etc. Admittedly, he visited the suit property for first time in September, 2006 but he has not brought the letter for inspection of the property. Further, as per DW2, there was no contract between defendant and DW2 for the inspection of the premises and in absence of any such contract, his inspection report comes under the Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.29/38 clouds. This report has been prepared by DW2 after inspecting the premises but no such information or intimation of inspection was given to the plaintiff nor his objections were taken into consideration at the time of inspection and moreover the defendant has filed photographs of premises after vacation of the property but no such photographs have been taken by the DW2 at the time of visiting the suit property to support his observation made in the report nor any site plan etc has been prepared by DW2. Further, even if his report is taken into consideration then, it will be relevant only for determining the damages or mesne profits after August, 2006 only. Moreover, his line of testimony is not a part of defence of the defendant at all.
(xxiv) Further, defendant has examined Sh. S.L. Dhir as DW3 who has given report of Assessment of disputed property (Ex. DW3/1) and as per report the fare market value/rental value of the property is Rs. 15,000/ to Rs. 17,000/ per month in 1995 and the relevant portion of his report may be reproduced here "A J J Cluster is situated on the adjacent premises (58 Rama Road) and the boundary of the J.J. Cluster and the said premises are shared leading to inhospitable environment. The J.J. Cluster has been in existence since 1980. The neighborhood is decrepit and is infact a certified slum.
A public toilet has been built along with the front Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.30/38 boundary wall for this J J Cluster, thereby defacing the frontage of the said premises. Also a garbage dhalao has been created adjacent to this. Garbage is dumped in piles all along the front boundary wall overflowing into from of the gate. The smell of garbage is so obnoxious that it is very difficult to stand there for a few minutes. Health will be affected due to bad smell."
(xxv) DW3 was duly cross examined. But court has to consider one thing that this report was filed in 2013 and not at the time of filing of WS and moreover, the grounds mentioned in the report are not the part of defence of defendant in WS at all and it is settled principle that at the stage of evidence, defendant can not take a new plea. Further, as per DW3, he has prepared the report after considering the rent agreements of other premises as well as after taking opinions of property dealers of the area but DW3 has not filed copy of even a single rent agreement to support his assessment report nor name of any property dealers has been given. Further, as per DW3 himself, he has prepared the report when measurement of premises while the measurement of the rental premises is a vital factor while deciding the market rental value of the property. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 50,000/ per month since 01.04.1994. Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.31/38 (xxvi) Admittedly, a commercial property to be used as a warehouses was let out to the defendant in the year 1975 and defendant has remained in possession till 25.02.2012. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that in case of Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd Vs. Basant Khatri, 190(2002) Delhi Law Times 769 and M/s M.C. Aggarwal HUF Vs. M/s. Sahara India & Ors., 2011(183) DLT105 that even if a landlord has failed to lead evidence with respect to the prevalent rents, yet in such circumstances, this court can take judicial notice of increase in rent of metropolitan cities, more so in commercial areas that a 15% increase of rent every year should be payable by a tenant to a landlord.
In view of the above quoted judgment, it is clear that though, plaintiff has not lead any evidence to prove the prevalent market rental value or damages, the plaintiff is entitled to 15% yearly cumulative increase on the last rent paid i.e Rs. 12,480/. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits commencing from 01.01.1995 with a 15% increase which will be payable from second year, third year, forth year etc after the termination of tenancy will be 15% increase of the mesne profits on the total of mesne profits which are payable at the end of the first year, second year etc respectively.
(xxvii) So far as the arguments urged on behalf of the defendant that the rate of mesne profits should only be the contractual Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.32/38 increase which was already agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is clear that the said rate being a contractual rate would have been only applicable if the contract would have been in operation. Once the contract does not fructify, the mesne profits, which are to be calculated, are as per the market rate of rent as prevalent in the area and this argument of defendant is not sustainable.
(xxviii) Further, plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the arrears of mesne profits at the rate of 10% per annum simple and the interest liability will come into existence at the end of each month of illegal occupation of the tenants on the amount due at the end of the month and till payment thereof. To clarify further, so far as the month of January, 1995 is concerned, interest will be payable for the said month from 01.02.1995. For the month of February, 1995 interest will be payable from 01.03.1995 and similarly with respect to earlier months, the interest will be payable at the end of month of illegal occupation by the tenants. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the mesne profits @ 10% per annum simple from the end of each illegal month of occupation and till the date of decree only.
(xxix) Thus, plaintiff is entitled to relief of mesne profits from 01.01.1995 with 15% yearly cumulative increase on the last rent paid i.e Rs. 12,480/ along with simple interest @ 10% per annum to be payable from the end of each illegal month of occupation and till the date of decree Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.33/38 only. Accordingly, the issues No. 1 to 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(B) For the sake of convenience, issue No. 4 and 6 are decided together being interlinked: Issue No. 4: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties?OPD.
Issue No. 6: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of para No. 5 of WS?OPD.
The onus to prove these issues is upon the defendant. The facts and evidence has already been discussed. In view of the discussion during findings on issue No. 1 to 3, without repeating the discussion, it can be concluded that the suit is maintainable as plaintiff has been able to show that defendant is tenant of plaintiff and there exists landlord tenant relationship. Therefore, issues No. 4 and 6 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(C) Issue No. 5: Whether the suit has not been filed by authorized person? OPD.
(i) The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Defendant Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.34/38 has raised the plea in WS that the suit has not been filed by duly authorized representative of plaintiff. Defendant has cross examined PW1 on this issue and the relevant portion of his testimony is as follows: "........I have not brought the articles and memorandum of Association of the plaintiff company. I have no document with me to show that I am director of the plaintiff company except a minute book. We are five directors of the plaintiff company, only two directors including myself attended the board meeting held on 02.05.1995. NO consent was taken from any other director to file the suit. There is a Corum of two directors of holding any meeting. Infact, that fact has been mentioned in the memorandum of articles which I have not brought today. Minutes of this meeting was approved in the next meeting held on 01.09.1995. This minute book is in the handwriting of Sh. Devki Raman. He is in Delhi and in the member of staff..........."
(ii) It is further argued on behalf of the defendant that plaintiff has failed to prove certificate of incorporation, so suit is liable to be dismissed and plaintiff has been failed to show authority of PW1.
(iii) On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that PW1 has filed copy of incorporation certificate which is Ex. PW1/1 and as far as the objection regarding resolution is concerned, as per Section 103 of Companies Act, the quorum of meeting is only two members of company held the meeting, the quorum of meeting is complete to hold the meeting and the resolution has been passed properly.
(iv) Arguments heard. Record perused.
Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.35/38
(v) PW1 has filed certified copy of incorporation of plaintiff
company (Ex. PW1/1) and has also filed relevant extract of minute books (Ex. PW1/2) to show the authority of PW1. The plea of the defendant regarding quorum of meeting is not sustainable in view of Section 103 of Companies Act, 1996. Thus, plaintiff has been able to prove that the suit has been filed and verified by duly authorized representative of plaintiff company and, therefore, issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(D) Issue No. 7: Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD.
(i) The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that as per plaintiff, defendant is unauthorized and illegal occupant and, therefore, the plaintiff is required to file suit for possession and plaintiff is required to undue the suit as per market value of the suit property and is also required to pay advolerum court fee on that and suit filed in the present form is not maintainable as plaintiff has neither valued the suit property nor has paid appropriate court fees accordingly.
(ii) On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.36/38 defendant has claimed himself to be a tenant and no rent agreement or any other agreement was in existence in 1995, so tenancy was monthly tenancy and accordingly, plaintiff has filed the suit after valuing the suit property as per annual rate of rent and has accordingly paid appropriate court fees and suit is maintainable.
(iii) Arguments heard. Record perused.
(iv) As has already been discussed during findings on issue No. 1
to 3 that plaintiff has able to prove that defendant is tenant of plaintiff, therefore, the suit in the present form is maintainable. Therefore, the issue no. 7 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
10. As all the issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of damages/mesne profits from 01.01.1995 with 15% yearly cumulative increase on the last rent paid i.e Rs. 12,480/ along with simple interest @ 10% per annum to be payable from the end of each illegal month of occupation and till the date of decree only and interest will be paid on the difference of amount to be payable by the defendant as per above calculation and the amount which has already been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff till handing over the Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.37/38 possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree Sheet be prepared after payment of court fee on arrears of rent/damages/mesne profits and on amount of interest till the date of judgment as well as deducting the amount paid by the defendant during court proceedings and till handing over the possession of the property to the plaintiff.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 07th May, 2014 (PRABH DEEP KAUR) CIVIL JUDGE05(WEST) THC/DELHI/07.05.2014 Suit No. 789/10 Banwari Lal Vs. M.G. Sahni Page No.38/38