Delhi District Court
Meenakshi Mittal vs Phool Kumar Dahiya on 9 July, 2024
-:: 1 ::- Date: 09.07.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-03 (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT010061432021
CS No. 433/2021
In the matter of :-
Smt. Meenakashi Mittal
W/o Sh. Mayank Mittal,
R/o G-6/70, Sector - 11,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085.
...... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Phool Kumar Dahiya
S/o Sh. Sultan Singh
R/o H-5/54, Sector - 11,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085. .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 03.09.2021
Date of Final Arguments Heard : 08.07.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.07.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 4,13,095/- (RUPEES FOUR LACS THIRTEEN
THOUSAND NINETY FIVE ONLY) ALONGWITH PENDENTELITE AND
FUTURE INTEREST.
JUDGMENT
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 1 of 15
-:: 2 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 1 The present suit is filed for recovery of damages for a sum of Rs.
4,13,095/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
2 The brief facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are as under:-
2.1 The plaintiff is owner of entire built up property bearing no. 70, in Block - G, Pocket - 6, Sector - 11, area measuring 31.69 so. meters, situated at Rohini, Delhi - 110085 (consisting of entire ground floor, first floor & second floor) (hereinafter called as 'suit property').
2.2 It is stated that defendant had approached plaintiff through property dealer Sh. Surender Kumar to seek residential accommodation for his entire family as his own house i.e. H-5/54, Sector -11, Rohini, Delhi 110085, was under construction at that relevant time. It is stated that on request of defendant, plaintiff by virtue of Rent Agreement duly registered document bearing registration no. 10,934 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 8,102 at pages 1 to 6 dated 17.09.2018 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub-Distt: VI, New Delhi, had let out the suit property for a limited period of 24 months, commenced from 15.09.2018 and expired on 14.09.2020 @ 25,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant was a tenant of plaintiff. It is stated that defendant had paid the rent up to the period of 15th December 2019 and is in arrears since thereafter.
2.3 It is stated that on 30.09.2020, defendant had handed over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to plaintiff but neglected to pay the arrears of rent due w.e.f. January 2020 to September 2020 @ Rs.
25,000/- as principal rent and further Rs. 500/- per day as penalty on account of non payment of said rent from January 2020 to September CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 2 of 15
-:: 3 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 2020 as it was mentioned in the registered Rent Deed of Clause 2, " if tenant fails to pay rent on 15 th Day of English Calendar month, then tenant shall pay Rs. 500/- per day as penalty alongwith the rent to the first party."
2.4 It is stated that defendant also neglected to pay electricity bill sent by TPDDL for entire 2 months (i.e. August and September) and had not paid electricity & water charges despite consumption solely on his part. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay said electricity bill of Rs. 9,970/- as the terms and condition of Rent Deed had been violated by the defendant, mentioned in Clause 5(i) of Rent Deed.
2.5 It is stated that defendant has also stolen 08 ceiling fans make Orient (cost 1500*8 = 12,000/- and 03 water motor make Sarvo (cost 2500*3 = 7500/-) in active connivance of his brother Manoj Kumar Dahiya for which separate FIR no. 697 dated 02.10.2020 with PS Shahbad Dairy outer North) was already registered. Further, defendant has caused severe damage to the entry gates of rooms while removing his furniture, such damage now estimated to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Defendant has also breached Clause (vi) of Rent Deed. However, in order to repair & restore the structural damages caused by the defendant to plaintiff's property, plaintiff has adjusted the security amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the defendant with the plaintiff.
2.6 It is further stated that defendant has retained the tenanted premises for extended period of 15 days despite expiry of mutually agreed 24 months tenancy period on 14.09.2020 as admittedly defendant has vacated the premises only on 30.09.2020 and as such as per the clause (8) of Rent Deed, defendant has undertaken to pay damages to plaintiff @ Rs. 1,000/- per day till vacant possession of the tenanted CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 3 of 15
-:: 4 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 premises is handed over to the landlord and as such defendant made himself liable to pay damages of Rs. 15,000/- to plaintiff for such extended period of time.
2.7 On many requests of plaintiff, defendant did not pay the rent alongwith the interest. Lastly, plaintiff has sent the legal notice dated 22.10.2020 through Sh. Vibhor Gupta and was received by the defendant. It is stated that defendant had sent reply to legal notice through his counsel Sh. Vinod Trisal in which he had denied all the contents of notice. It is further stated that the said reply is false, wrong as well as frivolous.
2.8 It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the Rent Deed as he has not complied with the terms and conditions of the Rent Deed. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant with the following reliefs:
i To pass a decree of recovery of damages of Rs. 4,03,125/- and electricity consumption charges of Rs. 9,970/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ii To award pendente-lite and future interest thereon @9% per annum upon the principal amount in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
iii To pass any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the interest of justice.
3 The facts stated by the defendant in his WS are as under:
3.1 It is stated by the defendant that the present suit of the plaintiff is of suppression and conealment of material facts.
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 4 of 15
-:: 5 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 3.2 It is submitted that defendant had been inducted as tenant in respect of the premises in question in terms of Rent Agreement duly registered on 17.09.2018.
3.3 It is denied that defendant had handed over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on 30.09.2020 after a lot of efforts and persuasion. It is stated that Clause No. 2 of Rent Deed is not at all attracted in any manner whatsoever as financial constraints were being faced by the defendant on account of pandemic and complete lockdown, the plaintiff agreed and assured the defendant that no penalty charges would be payable by the defendant for unintentional delay in payment of rent. It is also submitted that rent for 4 months w.e.f. April 2020 to July 2020 will not be charged due to lockdown and further the rent for January & February 2020 will be adjusted out of the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, no eventuality the plaintiff is entitled to claim the alleged amount.
3.4 It is also submitted that defendant had never denied or avoided to pay the alleged amount of Rs. 9,970/- towards electricity charges upon settlement of accounts in terms of the mutually agreed terms.
3.5 It is denied by the defendant that defendant has ever caused any wrongful loss to plaintiff or that defendant had stolen ceiling fans and water motors. It is stated that defendant has neither committed any theft nor caused any damage to the property or any part thereof.
3.6 It is stated that defendant got removed his own ceiling fans and one water motor. It is further stated that no damage caused to property of the plaintiff on part of the defendant. It was caused due to huge construction activities in the nearby house / property.
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 5 of 15
-:: 6 ::- Date: 09.07.2024
3.7 It is stated by the defendant that defendant had vacated the suit
premises on 14.09.2020 and it is also stated by the defendant that one verbal settlement has been taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant in which defendant assured that he will remove all his old articles which were lying at the suit property within a week or so and settle the accounts relating to the rent, electricity charges etc. with the plaintiff. It is stated by the defendant that this mutual verbal settlement will bring the tenancy to an end for all and purposes and as such the tenancy qua the premises mutually came to an end on expiry of the lease period of terms of the Rent Agreement dated 19.09.2018.
3.8 It is also submitted that premises remained under the lock and key of the defendant but on 01.10.2020 defendant had given the keys of the premises to maid to clean the room but plaintiff had taken the key and put his lock thereon and since then the defendant has been repeatedly requesting the plaintiff to settle the accounts and to allow him to remove all his old furniture etc. 3.9 It is stated that plaintiff has got issued the present notice just to extort money from the defendant so far as the rent actually due and payable is concerned, the defendant is ready and willing to settle the accounts amicably to avoid any conflict and deterioration of relationship.
3.10 It is stated that defendant had duly sent reply dated 01.11.2020 through his counsel and the defendant has not committed any crime and the alleged FIR is motivated.
3.11 Remaining averments made in the plaint are wrong and denied.
4 Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the WS filed on behalf of the defendant, which is as follows:
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 6 of 15
-:: 7 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 4.1 It is submitted that defendant has himself admitted that defendant has not paid the rent w.e.f January 2020 onwards. It is stated that defendant had not settled the accounts with the plaintiff till date and defendant was/is always at liberty to settle the accounts but neither approached nor accommodated the plaintiff whenever the plaintiff had approached the defendant for her legitimate dues pending towards the defendant. It is stated that defendant himself admitted that accounts had not been settled by him. It is further stated the plaintiff needs no comment being admitted a payment of Rs. 9,970/- by the defendant in his WS itself.
4.2 It is denied that defendant replaced the old & non functional fans with new ones with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. It is also denied that no water motor was replaced by the defendant with the new one and defendant is entitled to remove the same. It is denied that plaintiff got two rent agreements registered qua two properties.
4.3 It is stated that on the one hand defendant claimed that on 14.09.2020, defendant vacated the tenanted premises and shifted to his property and on the other hand, defendant stated that on 01.10.2020, he had given the key of the said premises to his maid to clean the rooms, which itself suggested that possession of the tenanted premises retained by the defendant even after the expiry of registered rent deed and up to 01.10.2020. It is stated that the defendant never approached the plaintiff to settle the accounts.
4.4 All the averments made in the plaint are reiterated and reaffirmed as correct and the contents of remaining paras of written statement are wrong and denied.
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 7 of 15
-:: 8 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 5 On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 12.09.2023:
i Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages in his favour as prayed for alongwith interest, if yes at what rate? OPP ii Whether the suit is bad for suppression of material facts?
iii Relief. 6 Plaintiff in order to prove her case has examined following witnesses: 6.1 PW-1 Smt. Meenakshi Mittal, W/o Sh. Mayank, aged about 36 years,
R/o G-6/70, Sector - 11, Rohini, Delhi. She tendered her affidavit which is Ex. PW1/B bearing her signature at Point A and B. She relied upon the following documents which are as under:-
i Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is the copy of lease deed.
ii Ex. PW1/2 (colly) is the electricity payment receipts issued by TPDDL
for a sum of Rs. 9,970/-.
iii Ex. PW1/3 is the digitally signed copy of said FIR No. 697/2020.
iv Ex. PW1/4 & Ex. PW1/5 is the supplementary complaint in FIR no.
697/2020 dated 02.10.2023 with E-police station (Shahbad Dairy, outer North) along with postal receipts dated 12.10.2020 respectively.
v Ex. PW1/6 & Ex. PW 1//7 are the legal notice sent by plaintiff's counsel with postal receipts.
vi Ex. PW1/8 is the reply sent by the defendant's counsel.
vii Ex. PW1/9 affidavit u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
viii Ex. PW1/A is plaint.
7 Defendant in order to prove his case has examined following witnesses:
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 8 of 15
-:: 9 ::- Date: 09.07.2024
7.1 DW-1 Sh. Phool Kumar, S/o Sh. Sultan Singh, R/o H-5/54, Sector -
11, Rohini, Delhi. He tendered his affidavit which is Ex. DW1/A bearing his signature at Point A and B. 8 I have heard the final arguments and perused the record.
9 My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
10 Issue no. (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages in his favour as prayed for alongwith interest, if yes, at what rate? OPP.
10.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is to seek recovery of Rs. 4,13,095/- from the defendant on the following counts:
a Rent from January 2020 to September 2020 alongwith penalty @ Rs.
500/- per day, totalling to Rs. 3,60,000/- as per Clause 2 of the Rent Agreement dated 17.09.2018 (Ex.PW1/1). Clause 2 of the Rent Agreement reads as under:
" Clause - 2 of Rent Agreement: "that the tenant shall pay to the landlord(s) for demised premises at settled rent as mentioned above, payable in advance starting from 15.09.2018 on or before 15 th day of each English Calendar month in cash / through cheque. In case tenant fails to pay rent on above stipulated date, then tenant shall pay Rs. 500 per day as penalty alongwith the rent to the First Party".
b Non-payment of electricity bill of Rs. 9,970/- for two months by the defendant. The said issue was already disposed off while deciding an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC vide order dated 22.03.2023.
c Lastly, Rs. 1,000/- per day as penalty for 15 days delayed vacation of the suit property by the defendant in furtherance of Clause 8 of the Rent Agreement which reads as under:
"Clause - 8 of Rent Agreement : "that in the event of tenant delaying in handing over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord beyond the expiry date of the agreement, or earlier termination thereof the tenant will pay as damages to the landlord of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 9 of 15
-:: 10 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 only) per day till the vacant possession of the demised premises is handed over to the landlord alongwith all fixtures and fittings in good and working condition, in addition to the rent as usual. However, this is without prejudice to the right of the landlord to take appropriate steps or his / her / their other rights."
10.2 To prove her case, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and has relied upon Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/9. To the contrary, to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant had examined himself as DW-1 and has not relied upon any document.
10.3 The plaintiff relied upon the terms of the Rent Agreement dated 17.09.2018 (Ex.PW1/1) to prove her case. The defendant in his written statement has admitted certain material facts which are as under:
a The defendant has stated that he had almost vacated the suit premises on 14.09.2020. The word 'almost'' indicates that the possession of the suit premises was not completely handed over to the plaintiff on 14.09.2020. The defendant in his WS has stated that the keys of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff on 30.09.2020 as certain material of the defendant was lying in the suit property. The relevant extract from the WS is as under:
"It is relevant to state that the defendant had already shifted to his property on 14.09.2020, and it was with the consent, permission and knowledge of the plaintiff, the premises in question remained under the lock and key of the defendant with the understanding that the defendant will remove his old furniture, clothes/jewellery etc. from the premises within a short period upon settlement of account. However, on 01.10.2020, the defendant gave the key of the said premises to his maid to clean the room, but the plaintiff with malafide intentions and ulterior motives took the keys from the hands of the maid and put his lock thereon....."
b The defendant has also admitted that at the time of taking the said premises on rent, the same was fitted with electric fan but those were quite old and non functional. Therefore, the defendant got the same replaced with the new one with the consent and permission of the CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 10 of 15
-:: 11 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 plaintiff. Similarly, out of the three motors, the defendant had got one of the motors replaced. It is also stated that at the time of vacating the premises, the defendant had got removed his ceiling fans and one water motor. Thus, the defendant is admitting that 08 old and non functional fans of the plaintiff were replaced with the new ones. The plaintiff has not claimed damages under this head as it is the case of the plaintiff that he has already recovered for his damages by adjusting the security amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
c The defendant has also admitted that he did not pay the monthly rent from January 2020 to September 2020. However, the defendant has stated that it was verbally agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the rent payable for a period of 2 months i.e. January and February 2020 will be adjusted out of the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and the rent for April 2020 to July 2020 will not be charged by the plaintiff on account of pandemic which had resulted in complete lockdown.
10.4 The entire defence of the defendant is based on verbal agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant at different points in time. The Indian Evidence Act clearly states that when the terms of a contract grant or disposition have been reduced in the form of a document, then no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. Reliance is placed upon Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act which states as under:
"The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of document.
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 11 of 15
-:: 12 ::- Date: 09.07.2024
Illustration (h): A hires lodgings of B, and gives B a card on which is written - "Rooms, Rs. 200 a month". A may prove a verbal agreement that these terms were to include partial board.
A hires lodgings of B for a year, and a regularly stamped agreement, drawn up by an attorney, is made between them. It is silent on the subject of board. A may not prove that board was included in the term verbally"
10.5 Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case, titled as "S. Saktivel Vs. M. Venugopal Pillai" (2000) 7 SCC 104 AIR 2000 SC 2633 which reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. Accordingly to Proviso (4) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act where under law a contract or disposition is required to be in writing and the same has been reduced to writing, its terms cannot be modified or altered or substituted by oral contract or disposition. No parol evidence will be admissible to substantiate such an oral contract or disposition. A document for its validity or effectiveness is required by law to be in writing and, therefore, no modification or alteration or substitution of such written document is permissible by parol evidence and it is only by another written document the terms of earlier written document can be altered, rescined or substituted. There is another reason why the defendant- appellant cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence to substantiate the subsequent oral arrangement. The reason being that the settlement deed is a registered document. The second part of Proviso (4) to Section 92 does not permit leading of parol evidence for proving a subsequent oral agreement modifying or resciding the registered instrument. The terms of a registered document can be altered, rescinded or varied only by subsequent registered document and not otherwise. If the oral arrangement as pleaded by the appellant is allowed to be substantiated by parol evidence, it would mean rewriting of the settlement deed and, therefore, no parol evidence is permissible."
7. It is not disputed that by settlement deed M passed on right to property to all his sons, who acquired right in the property. Where there is such conferment of title or the property, law requires it to be in writing for its efficacy and effectiveness. A document becomes effective by reason of the fact that it is in writing. Once under law a document is required to be in writing, parties to such a document cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence to substantiate any subsequent arrangement which has the effect of modifying earlier written document. If such parol evidence is permitted it would divest the other parties to the written document of their rights. Therefore, the subsequent oral arrangement set up by the defendant - appellant cannot be proved by the parol evidence. Such an evidence is not admissible in evidence."
10.6 The above being the legal position, the defendant could not be permitted to lead oral evidence modifying the terms of the contract. The rent agreement Ex.PW1/1 is an admitted registered document between the parties. DW1 in his testimony has clearly denied about the existence of any written agreement regarding the waiver of rent and adjustment of the security deposit towards the rent of tenanted CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 12 of 15
-:: 13 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 premises. DW-1 in his cross examination has departed from his pleading and stated that he had handed over the vacant possession/ key of the suit premises on 20.09.2020 whereas in his WS, he has stated that the keys were given to maid on 30.09.2020 and the plaintiff had forcibly taken the same from her. This clearly shows that the defendant has ill intention towards the plaintiff.
10.7 The law with regard to award of damages of the compensation for breach of contract, held in cases, titled as "Sudershan Kumar Bhayana (deceased) Thr LRs Vs. Vinod Seth (deceased) Thr. LRs" 2023 SCC Online Del 6097 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and "Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority" (2015) 4 SCC 136 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"43. On a conspectus of the above authorities, the law on compensation for breach of contract under Section 74 can be stated to be as follows:
43.1. Where a sum is named in a contract as a liquidated amount payable by way of damages, the party complaining of a breach can receive as reasonable compensation such liquidated amount only if it is a genuine pre-estimated of damages fixed by both parties and found to be such by the court. In other cases, where a sum is named in a contract as a liquidated amount payable by way of damages, only reasonable compensation can be awarded not exceeding the amount so stated. Similarly, in cases where the amount fixed is in the nature of penalty, only reasonable compensation can be awarded not exceeding the penalty so stated. In both cases, the liquidated amount or penalty is the upper limit beyond which the court cannot grant reasonable compensation. 43.2. Reasonable compensation will be fixed on well known principles that are applicable to the law of contract, which are to be found inter alia in Section 73 of the Contract Act.
43.3. Since Section 74 awards reasonable compensation for damage or loss caused by a breach of contract, damage or loss caused is a sine qua non for the applicablity of the Section.
43.4. The Section applies whether a person is a plaintiff or a defendant in a suit. 43.5. The sums spoken of may already be paid or be payable in future. 43.6. The expression "whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby" means that where it is possible to prove actual damage or loss, such proof is not dispensed with. It is only in cases where damage or loss is difficult or impossible to prove that the liquidated amount named in the contract, if a genuine pre-estimate of damage or loss, can be awarded. 43.7. Section 74 will apply to cases of forfeiture of earnest money under a contract. Where, however, forfeiture takes place under the terms and conditions of a public auction before agreement is reached, Section 74 would have no application."
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 13 of 15
-:: 14 ::- Date: 09.07.2024 10.8 The plaintiff has sought a penalty of Rs. 500/- per day for 09 months i.e. January 2020 to September 2020 alongwith rental amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month. In "Fateh Chand Vs. Bal Kishan Das" AIR SC 1405 as well as in the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that where on account of breach of contract, damages can be ascertained then there cannot be any validity of the clause which gives liquidated damages. In the instant case, the plaintiff will be properly compensated with the rent @ Rs. 25,000/- per month. The plaintiff could not have fetched more rent upon the suit property as the plaintiff had executed a rent agreement with the defendant for a period of 24 months.
10.9 The plaintiff has also sought a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per day for 15 days on account of delayed vacation by the defendant. Even in this situation, the plaintiff could have sustained a loss of Rs. 12,500/- (half of monthly rent) for non-timely vacation of the suit property by the defendant. The penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per day is excessive and the plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that he had incurred a loss of Rs. 1,000/- per day due to non vacation of the premises. The plaintiff has already claimed his amount as he is seeking rental amount from January 2020 to September 2020.
10.10 With the aforesaid observations, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11 Issue no. (ii) Whether the suit is bad for suppression of material facts?
OPD
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 14 of 15
-:: 15 ::- Date: 09.07.2024
11.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The defendant had
not led any evidence to prove the same. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF 12 The suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs which are as under:-
12.1 Rent @ Rs. 25,000/- per month from January 2020 to September 2020 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the suit till its actual realization.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open
Court on 09.07.2024 Shivali Bansal
District Judge-03
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS No. 433/21 Meenakshi Mittal Vs. Phool Kumar Dahiya Page: 15 of 15