Delhi District Court
Mr. Abdul Basit vs Mohd. Faheem Bari on 16 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRANDEEP KAUR:CIVIL JUDGE-05:
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CSSCJ No.: 1480/2020
1.MR. ABDUL BASIT
2. MOHD. ANWAR BOTH SONS OF LATE MR. ABDUL WASE ALL RESIDENTS OF:
8945, NAYA MOHALLA, PUL BANGASH, GALI BRUSH WALI, DELHI-110006. ....PLAINTIFFS VERSUS MOHD. FAHEEM BARI S/O LATE MOHD. ARIF R/O 6291, GROUND FLOOR, GALI BAINT WALI, BARA HINDU RAO, DELHI- 110006. ....DEFENDANT SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RENT OF Rs.57,227/- BEING ARREARS OF RENT ALONGWITH INTEREST.
Date of Institution : 28.10.2020
Date of Final Arguments: : 16.12.2021
Date of Judgment : 16.02.2022
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking recovery of Rs.57,227/-
alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per plaint, are as under:
(a) The plaintiffs are owners/landlords of the property Abdul Basit v Mohd. Fahim Bari Pg. 1 of 7 bearing No. 6291, Gali Baint Wali, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi- 110006.
(b) The defendant is a tenant in respect of One Room on Ground Floor forming part of Property bearing No. 6291, Gali Baint Wali, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-110006 under the plaintiffs.
(c) Initially the tenancy was in the name of the grandfather of the defendant namely Mohd. Ramzan by virtue of Rent Deed dated 20.04.1968, however, after his death the tenanted premises devolved upon Md. Arif i.e. the father of the defendant. Further, after the death of Md. Arif, the tenanted premises is being occupied and possessed by the defendant only without the interference of any other legal heirs of Late Mohd. Ramzan and Mohd. Arif.
(d) Later on due to certain disputes between the defendant and plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 120/2014 against the defendant in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which suit was settled/compromised between the parties hereto by way of settlement/compromise deed executed in May, 2015. It was settled that the defendant will be the tenant in the tenanted premises in question and he will clear the entire arrears of rent and will pay the future rent @ Rs. 2,000/- p.m. w.e.f 01.04.2015 to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 120/2014 was withdrawn by the plaintiffs from the concerned Court.
(e) The defendant was paying the monthly rent to the plaintiffs and after due time the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,200/- p.m. which is the last paid rent by the defendant to plaintiffs.
(f) The tenancy of the defendant is monthly which Abdul Basit v Mohd. Fahim Bari Pg. 2 of 7 commence on the first day of each English calendar month and ends on the last day of the same month.
(g) The defendant is most irregular and habitual defaulter in making the payment of the rent of the premises under his tenancy and occupation. The defendant has neither paid nor tendered the rent of the premises under his tenancy & occupation w.e.f. 01.04.2019 till date inspite of repeated demands and requests of the plaintiffs.
(h) Thereafter a demand notice dated 26.02.2020 was sent to the defendant thereby calling upon him to clear the entire arrears of rent, which was duly served upon him, however, the defendant did not comply with the said notice. Thereafter, a reminder notice dated 16.09.2020 was sent to the defendant thereby calling upon him to clear the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2019 till 30.09.2020 @ Rs. 2,200/- per month, totalling Rs. 39,600/-. Again despite the service of the aforesaid reminder notice, the defendant did not comply with the same and the arrears of rent are still due and outstanding against the defendant.
(i) The defendant is liable to pay the following legally recoverable amount to the plaintiffs towards arrears of rent:-
S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1. Arrears of rent w.e.f.
01.04.2019 to 31.10.2020 Rs.41,800/-
at the rate of Rs.2,200/-
2. Interest @ 15% per annum Rs.9,927/-
on the aforesaid arrears of rent
3. Legal notice charges Rs.5,500/-
In this background, the plaintiffs have filed the Abdul Basit v Mohd. Fahim Bari Pg. 3 of 7 present suit against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.57,227/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
3. Defendant was duly served on 08.12.2020. However, despite service, defendants failed to appear. Accordingly, defendant was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.09.2021.
4. Sh. Abdul Basit stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Copy of relinquishment deed dated 26.09.2013 Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
(ii) Copy of the rent receipt no. 231 dated 31.03.2019 in Urdu Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) and its copy of English translation Ex.PW1/3.
(iii) Copy of the settlement/compromise deed executed in May, 2015 Ex.PW1/4, the document is photo copy and is thus marked as Mark A.
(iv) The copies of the statements of the parties and the orders passed in Civil Suit no. 120/2014 ExPW1/5 (colly) (OSR).
(v) Office copy of the legal notice dated 26.02.2020 along with postal receipt Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
(vi) Office copy of the legal notice dated 16.09.2019 along with postal receipt Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
(vii) Tracking report Ex.PW1/8.
(viii) Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the tracking report Ex.PW1/9.
Abdul Basit v Mohd. Fahim Bari Pg. 4 of 7
5. The said witness was duly examined in chief and discharged. Vide separate statement of PW1 recorded on 18.11.2021, ex-parte PE was closed.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the case file carefully.
7. PW1 proved document Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 whereby the Faheem Bari has paid the rent of Rs.4,400/- for two months in year 2019. Ex. PW1/2 proves that defendant is tenant in suit premises. The said rent receipt also proves that rate of rent is Rs.2,200/- per month. As per plaintiff, the defendant has not paid rent since 01.04.2019. PW-1 was not cross examined by defendant. As such, the court has no reason to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the claim of the plaintiff as averred in the instant suit stands established.
8. The defendant was served with a legal notice dated 26.02.2020 and 16.09.2019 respectively which are Ex. PW-1/6 (colly) and Ex. PW1/7 (colly) respectively, Tracking report Ex. PW1/8.
9. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as Abdul Gaffar vs. DDA 2001 Rajdhani Law Reporter 249 that if a legal notice is given by a party, the same is not replied and contents not denied then, silence of the notice raises presumption against him.
Abdul Basit v Mohd. Fahim Bari Pg. 5 of 7
10. Thus, on the basis of the above law as well as Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW1/7, the factum of delivery of the said legal notice duly stands established and same raises a presumption against the defendant under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as it is a settled proposition of law that non denial or evasive denial amounts to an admission.
11. The suit property is situated within jurisdiction of this court. Thus, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
12. Since the defendants chose not to appear and contest the suit despite being served, the averments in the plaint as well as the documents filed in support of the plaint, have gone unchallenged. The testimony of PW-1 who proved the documents Ex. PW-1/2, Ex.PW-1/3, Ex. PW1/6 to Ex. PW1/9 and Mark A, has also gone unrebutted. As such, the court has no reason to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, the claim of the plaintiff as averred in the instant suit stands established. Thus, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and plaintiffs are held entitled to recovery of sum of Rs.57,227/- from the defendant.
13. The plaintiff has sought pendent lite and future interest. The court is of the opinion that 6% interest p.a. will suffice interest of the justice. Accordingly, plaintiff is held entitled to recover from the defendant an amount of Rs.57,227/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Abdul Basit v Mohd. Fahim Bari Pg. 6 of 7 from date of filing of the suit till realization of decreetal amount.
14. Suit of the plaintiff stands decreed alongwith costs of the suit.
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 16.02.2022.
(Kirandeep Kaur) Civil Judge-05, Central District Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi Present judgment consists of 07 pages and each page is signed by me.
Abdul Basit v Mohd. Fahim Bari Pg. 7 of 7