Delhi District Court
Smt. Lata Devi vs Sh. K.C. Singhal on 27 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VINOD GOEL, DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE: SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
C.S. No.16/14
Unique Identification No. 02402C0020542014
Smt. Lata Devi
W/o Sh. R.L. Aggarwal
R/o D55, Vivek Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi110095.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. K.C. Singhal
S/o Late Sh. G.R. Singhal,
B373, J & K Pocket,
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi110095
Also at : Plot No.26, Burgees Park,
Opposite Red Cross Hospital,
Dilshad Garden, Shahdara
Delhi110095.
.....Defendant
Date of Institution : 21.01.2014
Arguments heard on : 14.08.2014
Date of decision : 27.08.2014
On Application u/o XII rule 6 CPC
Suit for recovery of Possession and Damages/Mesne Profits
Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal
C.S. No.16/14
Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 1 of 21
JUDGEMENT :
1. Plaintiff has preferred this suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits/damages against the defendant on the premises that vide Rent Deed registered on 31.1.2013 with the office of Sub Registrar IV A, Shahdara, Delhi, she inducted the defendant as a tenant at a rent of Rs.22,000/ P.M. including other charges in respect of land/plot bearing no.26 measuring 957 Sq. Yards surrounded by boundary walls situated at Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, in the abadi of Burgees Park, Opposite Red Cross Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi110095 and shown with red colour in the site plan. The said property was rented out for a limited period of one year w.e.f. 1.1.2013. The tenancy stood determined by efflux of time w.e.f. 31.12.2013 and possession of the defendant is unauthorised and illegal. The plaintiff also served a legal notice dated 20.11.2013 sent through speed post asking him to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property on or before 31.12.2013. Despite service of the said legal notice, the defendant has not complied with the same.
2. In his written statement, the defendant has, inter alia, pleaded that initially the tenancy was created in his favour on rent @ Rs. Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 2 of 21 20,000/ P.M. for one year w.e.f. 1.1.2012 with a mutual understanding that it shall be for a period of 5 years. He has spent Rs.5,00,000/ to elevate the level of the land and Rs.2,00,000/ on raising the structure. The tenancy was renewed on 31.1.2013 w.e.f. 1.1.2013 for a period of one year at the rent of Rs.22,000/ P.M. In the month of December, 2013 the defendant offered the plaintiff increase of rent which was kept on hold though the plaintiff was supposed to renew the Rent Deed for another 3 years. The defendant has also filed a Counter Claim for a direction to the plaintiff to execute a Rent Deed for another period of 3 years w.e.f. 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2016 and he is willing to deposit increased rent @ Rs.24,200/ P.M. It is also pleaded that premises was given on rent to carry a manufacturing unit and Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act requires six months notice for termination of the lease. The defendant did not receive any legal notice dated 20.11.2013 and suit has been filed on the basis of a defective notice.
3. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant denying the allegations of the defendant and reaffirming the averments made in the plaint.
4. The plaintiff has filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 3 of 21 referred to as the "Code") on 18.3.2014 for passing a judgment and decree of possession in respect of demised premises. Reply to this application has been filed by the defendant contesting the same and seeking its dismissal.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and and very carefully perused the material available on record.
6. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed. The last Rent Deed was executed between the parties on 29.01.2013 which was registered on 31.01.2013. He also submitted that the rent of the premises in question @ Rs.22,000/ p.m. is also not disputed. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 20.11.2013 through her counsel to the defendant on 22.11.2013 at his all three addresses, postal receipts whereof are on the record. By this notice, the defendant was requested to deliver back the possession on 31.12.2013, which is the last date of lease as per last Rent Deed registered on 31.1.2013. He further submitted that as per the terms and condition of the Rent Deed, the land in question was rented out for purpose of trading and not for manufacturing purpose and the defendant was not to alter or raise additional construction on the land in question. He pointed out Clause Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 4 of 21 No.23 of Rent Deed by which renewal of Rent Deed for further period of the demised land was to be decided by the parties mutually and not at the option of the defendant.
7. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the originally the property was let out to him vide Rent Deed dated 28.12.2011 for a period from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012 at a rent of Rs. 20,000/ P.M. which is concealed by the plaintiff in the suit. He further submits that this Rent Deed was renewed on 29.01.2013 at an increased rent of Rs.22,000/ for a period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013. He argued that it was verbally agreed at the time of initial lease that it would be for a period of five years and the defendant may raise construction on the plot and the rent would be increased by 10% every year till December 2016. The defendant has spent Rs.7,00,000/ in raising the boundary wall and constructing the office. He referred proviso (6) to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in Smt. Madalsa Devi vs. Mridula Chandra AIR 1994 Patna 91, of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 1833, of our Hon'ble High Court in Smt. Sneh Vasih and another vs. Flatex Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 5 of 21 India Ltd. (2002) 95 DLT 373, Dena Bank vs. Bindal Construction (P) Ltd. 1991 Rajdhani Law Reporter 20 and Chitranjan Medicos vs. Union of India 1991 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 14. He argued that the defendant has filed a Counter Claim for a direction to the plaintiff to renew the Rent Deed for five years upto 2016. The defendant has not received any notice dated 20.11.2013 from the plaintiff even otherwise the notice issued by the defendant is not in accordance with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as the land was rented out to the defendant for manufacturing purpose and for this reason, a notice giving 6 months time is required to be issued to the defendant whereas the plaintiff has issued him a notice of mere 15 days.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.
Statutory Provisions
9. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of law i.e. Order XII Rule 6 CPC which is reproduced as under :
"6. Judgment on admissions - (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 6 of 21 otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under subrule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment, and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."
Object and scope
10. Order XII Rule 6 CPC is enacted for the purpose of expediting the trial; if there is any admission on behalf of the defendant or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court to deliver a speedy judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim. However, a judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court and is neither mandatory nor it is peremptory. This rule applies wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making it, to succeed.
11. While dealing with the scope of order XII rule 6 CPC, it has Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 7 of 21 been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. 2011 (7) Scales 566 that admission should be categorical and conscious and deliberate act of the party showing an intention to be bound by it and relevant Para (9) of the judgment reads as under :
"It is true that a judgment can be given on an "admission" contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order XII rule 6 CPC being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the Defendants, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a Defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is clear 'admission' which can be acted upon."
12. The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC has also recently been explained by our own Hon'ble High Court in Scj Plastics Ltd. vs. Creative Wares Ltd., 2012 VII AD (Delhi) 447 and it has been held Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 8 of 21 that object of Order XII rule 6 CPC is that in appropriate cases litigations should not continue unnecessarily once it is found that there are categorical admissions and judicial process cannot be abused to delay the matter. Our Hon'ble High Court has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and Anr. (1974)/SCC 242 and relevant Para 27 reads as under :
"From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar, the principle that emerges is, that if at the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the Court, on the basis of which, the Court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape of either of evidence recorded or produced in the case, or, it may partly or wholly in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement, itself. Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible u/s 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitutes a waiver of proof. They by themselves can Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 9 of 21 be made foundation of the rights of the parties."
13. In Smt. Sudesh Madhok & Anr. vs. M/s Lunar Diamonds Limited and Ors. (2012) X AD Delhi 99, it has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court that the object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to ensure that there should not be prolongation of litigation once the main ingredients of cause of action with respect to passing of a decree are found to be admitted in pleadings or otherwise.
14. Further while dealing with the object and scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Uttam Singh Duggal vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0485/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 2740 in the following words :
"As to the object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rules, it is stated "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of relief to which according to the admission of the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled".
We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule, as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 10 of 21 admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
Order XII Rule 6 CPC & suit for possession
15. Recently in a judgment Payal Vision Ltd. vs. Radhika Choudhary, 2012 (9) Scales 105 decided on 20.9.2012, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Para 6) 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 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and so long as these two aspects are not in dispute, the court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure.
16. While coming to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to refer to para no.1, 2, 4 and 23 of the admitted Rent Deed dated 29.1.2013 and registered on 31.1.2013 which reads as under : Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 11 of 21 "1. That the second party has take the above said premises for the purpose of Trading of Tiles & Marble Stones etc. only, in the condition as it is shown before and at the time of agreement without any renovation/repairs.
2. That for the use of demised premises the second party shall pay to the first party a sum of Rs.
22,000/ (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only) per month as rent to be paid in advance on or before the 01st day of each English Calender Month.
4. That the second party shall not make any type of alteration or additional construction in the demised premises and plot will remain in its original condition as is provided by the first party.
23. That after the expiry of the term of this Agreement, it can be further renewal on the terms and conditions as mutually decided between both the parties. However, the rent shall be increased only by 10% of the existing rent and a fresh agreement shall be executed at that time."
17. It is clear as crystal from the perusal of Clause (1) of the admitted registered Rent Deed between the parties that the land/plot in question was rented out by the plaintiff to the defendant for the purpose of trading of tiles and marble etc and it was not at all for the purpose of carrying any manufacturing activity. It was made clear Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 12 of 21 vide Clause (4) that the defendant shall not make any type of alteration or additional construction in the demised property and the plot shall remain in its original condition as given by the plaintiff. It is also evident from Clause (23) that after the expiry of the terms of lease it could be renewed on such terms and conditions as mutually decided by the parties.
18. Since the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 20.11.2013 in advance through her counsel to the defendant at his all three addresses vide postal receipts dated 22.11.2013 placed on record asking him to deliver her the possession on or before 31.12.2013, there was no willingness on the part of the plaintiff to extend the lease.
19. In his written statement the defendant has denied receipt of notice dated 20.11.2013 and also pleaded that the suit is filed on the basis of defective notice. As per the Rent Deed the property in question was rented out to the defendant for a period till 31.12.2013 and under subclause (a) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the lease of immovable property stand determined by efflux of time limited thereby. Under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the landlord can recover the possession from the defendant within a period of 12 years whose the tenancy is determined. The period to Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 13 of 21 recover the possession after the tenancy is determined is 12 years. Though the tenancy of the defendant on the land in question was upto 31.12.2013, yet it appears that the plaintiff got issued a notice dated 20.11.2013 to the defendant as a precautionary measure asking him to vacate and deliver her possession on or before 31.12.2013. Be that it may, legal position remain that no such notice was required to be issued by the plaintiff when lease was agreed to be determined on 31.12.2013 in view of Section 111 (a) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
20. The plaintiff has placed on record copy of notice dated 20.11.2013 alongwith three postal receipts dated 22.11.2013. The defendant has denied receipt of this notice in his written statement and reply to application under Order XII Rule 6 of the "Code". Under Section 114 illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when it appears to the court that the common course of business renders it probable that a thing would happen, the court may draw presumption that the thing would have happened, unless there are circumstances in a particular case to show that the common course of business was not followed. Thus, Section 114 enables the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 14 of 21 the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Consequently, the court can presume that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. When applied to communications sent by post, Section 114 enables the court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. The presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 is far stronger which gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by the registered post. Unless and until, the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. Moreover, the pleadings are the foundation of litigation and must setforth sufficient factual details. Experience has shown that all kinds of pleadings are introduced and even false and fabricated documents are filed in civil cases because there is an inherent profit in continuation of possession. In a suit for ejectment, it is necessary for the defendant to plead specifically as to the basis on which he is claiming a right to continue in possession. A defendant Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 15 of 21 has to show a subsisting right to continue as a lessee. No issue arises on vague pleadings. A vague denial of the receipt of a notice, to quit is not sufficient to raise an issue. To rebut the presumption of service of a notice to quit, the defendant has to plead material particulars in the written statement such as where after receiving the plaint and the documents, the defendant has checkedup with the Post Office and has obtained a certificate that the postal receipt filed by the plaintiffs was forged and was not issued by the concerned Post Office. Reference can be given to a recent judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kavita P. Lalwani 2012 (191) DLT 594. Such type of a self serving denial of the defendant and more so, in these type of cases, cannot hold back the court from exercising its jurisdiction to decree a suit u/o XII Rule 6 of the "Code".
21. In the present case, the defendant in his written statement has merely denied the receipt of the notice and further pleaded that the suit is filed on the basis of a defective legal notice. The defendant has not pleaded that after receiving the plaint and the documents, he has checked up with the post office and obtained a certificate that the Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 16 of 21 postal receipts filed by the plaintiff were forged and were not issued by the concerned Post Office. Be that it may, notice does not effect the case of the plaintiff as while relying upon its previous judgment in V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal AIR 1979 SC 1745, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) (2) SCC 781 that it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on a tenant and no notice to quit was necessary u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the plaintiff to get a decree of eviction against the defendant.
22. Apart from this, keeping in view the amendment brought about to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by Amendment Act no.3 of 2003 and as per which no objection with regard to termination of tenancy is permitted on the ground that legal notice did not validly terminate the tenancy by a notice ending with the expiry of the tenancy month as long as a period of 15 days was otherwise given to the tenant to vacate the property and the intention of the legislature is, therefore, clear that the technical objections should not be permitted to defeat the substantial justice and the suit for possession of the tenanted premises once the tenant has a period of 15 days to vacate Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 17 of 21 the tenanted premises. Even otherwise the present suit having been filed by the plaintiffs on 21.01.2014 against the defendant itself is a notice of termination of the tenancy of the defendant. The defendant was served with the summons of suit on 28.1.2014 and filed written statement on 19.02.2014.
23. The judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Smt. Madalsa Devi and of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Rajindra Singh case does not help the defendant at all. It was held that 6th proviso to Section 92 of Evidence Act,1872 can be invoked if the language employed in a document is ambiguous and admits of variety of meaning and then oral evidence may guide the court in unraveling the true intentions of the parties. In the present case there is no ambiguity in the registered admitted Rent Deed between the parties and terms of the document are clear and unambiguous with regard to period and purpose of lease and mutual renewal thereof as detailed in para 18 and 19 of this judgment. The other judgment relied upon in Smt. Sneh Vasih (Supra) of our Hon'ble High Court is not applicable to the present case as in that case it was specifically provided vide Clause 4 of the lease agreement that on the expiry of the lease period, the lessee shall have exclusive right or option of renewal Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 18 of 21 of lease for the further period of three years and the lessee shall be entitled to renewal of lease on the same terms and conditions and after expiry of the lease period herein mentioned. However, in the present case, admitted registered Rent Deed between the parties does not provide any exclusive right or option of renewal of lease to the defendant/tenant. There is no dispute with regard to the principles of law laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in Dena Bank (Supra) and Chitranjan Medicos (Supra) which are relied upon by the ld. counsel for the defendant.
24. So far as contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant regarding filing of a counterclaim for Specific Performance of the Contract for renewal of the Lease Deed is concerned, the same does not affect the disposal of this application under Order XII Rule 6 of the "Code" for entitlement of the plaintiff to a decree of possession in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Sunil Kapoor vs. Himmat Singh & Others 2010 (115) DRJ 229 wherein it was held in para no.15 that if the defendant has to succeed in his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, till execution of the conveyance deed in pursuance to the decree, if any, in his favour, he has no ground under law to save his position and his status would continue to be as Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 19 of 21 before i.e. defendant whose tenancy has been determined. And once that is found to be the position in law, the defence of agreement to sell is not a legal defence available to the defendant in a suit for ejectment.
25. Now while applying the provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the "Code" and the principles laid down recently by our Hon'ble High Court in beforesaid judgments and recently by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Payal Vision Ltd (supra), admittedly there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the last paid rent of the suit property before filing of the present suit was Rs.22,000/ and as per admitted registered Rent Deed between the parties, the tenancy stood determined under Section 111 (a) of Transfer of Property Act 1882 on expiry of 31.12.2013. It appears that the defence of alleged oral agreement between the parties for renewal of the lease deed for the period upto the year 2016 has been taken by the defendant to prolong his stay in the land in question.
26. In view of the above discussions, it has to be held that the defendant has made admission regarding relationship of landlord and tenant as also about the rate of rent between the parties. The period admitted registered Rent Deed dated 31.01.2013 between the parties for a period of 12 months w.e.f. 01.01.2013 has already expired on Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 20 of 21 31.12.2013 and the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time. Thus as carved out from the written statement of the defendant it is clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal and even otherwise the filing of the present suit is itself a notice of the termination of the tenancy to the defendant. Hence, a decree of possession of the suit property shall follow under Order XII Rule 6 of the "Code". Therefore, a decree of possession of the property/plot bearing no.26 measuring 957 Sq. Yards surrounded by boundary walls situated at Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, in the abadi of Burgees Park, Opposite Red Cross Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara Delhi110095 shown with red colour in the site plan is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. It is made clear that the dispute between the parties regarding recovery of mesne profits shall be adjudicated upon after framing of issues and adducing evidence by them.
Announced in open Court on 27th August, 2014. (Vinod Goel) District & Sessions Judge Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi.
Smt. Lata Devi vs. K.C. Singhal C.S. No.16/14 Decided on 27.08.2014 Page 21 of 21