Delhi District Court
Shri Suraj Kohli vs Shri R.K. Vashisht on 24 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HEM RAJ
ADJ8 : CENTRAL : ROOM No. 152 : THC : DELHI.
Suit No. 77/2014 (New No. 610049/2016)
Unique ID No. : DLCT010001422013
In the matter of:
Shri Suraj Kohli,
S/o Late Shri D.D. Kohli,
R/o 4B/60, Third Floor,
Old Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi. .........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Shri R.K. Vashisht,
S/o Shri R.C. Vashisht,
R/o 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi. .........Defendant
Date of institution : 18.11.2013.
Date of Reserving judgment : 09.12.2020.
Date of pronouncement : 24.12.2020.
JUDGMENT :
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking the following reliefs:
(a) A decree for possession in respect of shop on the ground floor of Property No. 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi as more Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 specifically shown red in the site plan attached may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to remove its belongings and to deliver the peaceful physical possession thereof to the plaintiff.
(b) A decree for damages/mesne profits @ Rs.25,000/ per month in respect of shop on the ground floor of Property No. 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi as shown red in the site plan from the date of filing of the suit till the vacant and physical possession is delivered to the plaintiff be also passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
(c) Interest Pendente lite and future on the aforesaid amount @ 24% from the date of filing of suit till the pronouncement of the final order. The realization of the amount be also awarded to the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
(d) Costs of the suit and such other and further relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, without unnecessary details, is that the plaintiff claims himself to be the owner/landlord of the shop measuring 10'x10', situated on the ground floor of property No. 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter shall be referred to as "suit property" for the sake of Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 brevity), which was purchased by his father Shri D.D. Kohli from one Smt. Shakuntala Rani Bala vide agreement to Sell & Purchase dated 27.09.1993 against sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/. Smt. Shakuntala Rani Bala also executed a Will in favour of the father of the plaintiff which was duly registered with the SubRegistrar. Since the day, the father of the plaintiff died in the year 2004, the plaintiff is in exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the suit property.
3. Further, that on 28.04.1994 father of the plaintiff had entered into a collaboration agreement with one Smt. Mohinder Kaur Dua in respect of property No. 12/42, wherein the father of the plaintiff would get the second floor in the said building after construction on behalf of Smt. Mohinder Kaur Dua. The said partnership papers are lying with the defendant and on the basis of aforesaid partnership a registered GPA dated 28.04.1994 was executed by one Sh. Rajender Singh Dua, general attorney of Smt. Rajinder Kaur, which was executed in favour of the defendant and the said document was duly registered with the SubRegistar, Delhi.
4. Further that, fourth floor of the property No. 12/42 was built up with the consent of the owner and the same went to the share of the defendant. Soon after the construction defendant offered the father of the plaintiff to exchange second floor of 12/42, Old Rajender Nagar with third floor of the 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar, to which the Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 father of plaintiff agreed. The defendant agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.10,00,000/ at the time of registration of the final docments of ownership.
5. That the defendant at that time had informed the father of the plaintiff that he had entered into collaboration agreement in respect of the suit property with owner Smt. Rani Bala and her husband who was the attorney of the previous owner represented by one Harvinder Singh who was the registered owner of one Sh. Man Mohan Singh Puri. The father of the plaintiff after having verified all the documents registered the collaboration agreement happily agreed for exchange of the building and since then has been living in the 3 rd floor in the capacity of owner.
6. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after having shifted to the third floor of premises No. 4B/60, the plaintiff got the electricity meter and water connected in the name of his wife to which the defendant had never objected. The collaboration agreement could not be executed as a dispute arose between Smt. Rani Bala and the defendant and no further documents were executed by the defendant and thereafter, in a suit between the defendant and Smt. Rani Bala the Court had granted status quo in respect of the suit property and for that reason no document could be executed to avoid contempt of court.
Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21
7. That father of the plaintiff expired on 14.10.2004. However prior to his death, in May, 2004, father of the plaintiff had been requesting the defendant to execute the proper documents but no documents could be executed on the excuse of defendant having some dispute with his wife which took time. Thereafter, on 03.06.2000 the father of the plaintiff received the legal notice dated 03.06.2000 from Smt. Indu, wife of the defendant claiming herself to be the owner of the property and started claiming rent of Rs.7,500/. The said notice was duly replied by father of the plaintiff through reply dated 28.06.2000.
8. The plaintiff further stated that his father had also entered into a partnership deed with the defendant and the defendant had been using the ground floor for office purpose for running the business till his demise on 14.10.2004. The right of the defendant in the said shop was limited to that of a licensee for jointly undertaking collaboration work. In December, 2007 the plaintiff had requested the defendant to vacate the shop for his bona fide need but the defendant did not vacate the shop and kept making excuses. Somewhere in the year 2010 some police officials visited the suit property in relation to a criminal case lodged by Sh. Man Mohan Puri and thereafter, the plaintiff came to know about the criminal intention of the defendant. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff also received summons from the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal.
Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21
9. That an MoU was entered into between Sh. Shamsher Singh, husband of Rani Bala, father of the plaintiff with defendant to safeguard the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further claimed that the plaintiff has been living in the said portion since 19941995 and the defendant does not hold any documents regarding the ownership. The plaintiff further stated that vide legal notice dated 01.05.2013 the plaintiff terminated the right of the defendant in the suit property with effect from 31.05.2013.
10. The plaintiff further stated that cause of action has arisen on 31.05.2013 when the defendant failed to vacate the suit premises despite service of the notice. This court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the parties to the suit reside and work for gain at Delhi.
11. The defendant filed the written statement to the plaint of the plaintiff wherein preliminary objections are taken by the defendant that the suit property belongs to one Rani Bala with whom he entered into a collaboration agreement. He constructed the complete property as per the collaboration agreement. First and third floor with roof rights came to the share of the defendant and it was verbally agreed that the space below the terrace comprising of 10'x8' would come into the share of the defendant and shall be used by the defendant.
Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 However, later on a dispute arose and the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is further stated that the plaintiff is the tenant of the defendant on the third floor and one shop, out of the six shops on the ground floor but the defendant has never seen him operating any shop. It is further stated that father of the plaintiff expired in the year 2004 and after that the plaintiff, just in order to extort money from the defendant had not paid the rent for the third floor for which the defendant had filed a case against the plaintiff in the Court of Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
12. In the reply on merits the defendant submits that he has not seen the plaintiff in any of the shops on the ground floor of the property. The plaintiff is the tenant of the defendant on the third floor of the property. It is further submitted that on account of the marriage of the plaintiff, the defendant had provided the third floor of property No. 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar, Delhi, where the suit property is situated, at the request of his father as the plaintiff was emotionally attached with his father. The rate of rent was agreed to be @ Rs.7,500/ per month which was later on enhanced to Rs.10,800/ per month which was the last paid rent. It is further submitted that Man Mohan Puri is the owner of the suit property as per the record of L&DO.
13. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement of Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 the defendant wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and has controverted the averments of the defendant in the written statement.
14. On the completion of the pleadings of the parties vide order dated 23.07.2014 the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of property in suit? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP (3) Relief.
15. In order to prove his case the plaintiff has examined two witnesses.
PW1 Suraj Kohli, is the plaintiff himself. He tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and proved the following documents:
(1) Ex.PW1/1 is the agreement to sell dated 27.09.1993 executed between Smt. Raj Bala and father of the plaintiff No. 2.
(2) Ex.PW1/2 is the original Will dated 27.09.1993 executed by Smt. Raj Bala in favour of father of the plaintiff.
(3) Ex.PW1/3 is the original receipt of Rs.1,25,000/ dated 27.09.1993 executed by Smt. Rani Bala.
Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21
(4) Ex.PW1/4 is the original registered GPA dated
27.09.1993 in favour of Sh. Sher Singh, husband of Smt. Rani Bala being the general attorney of Sh. Harvinder Singh Puri in favour of Sh. Chander Prakash Kohli.
(5) Ex.PW1/5 is the original SPA dated 27.09.1993 executed by Sh. Shamsher Singh being the general attorney of Sh. R.K. Kohli in favour of Sh. Chander Prakash Puri.
(6) Ex.PW1/6 is the death certificate of father of the plaintiff, which is deexhibited and marked as MarkA. (7) Ex.PW1/7 is the site plan of the suit property.
(8) Ex.PW1/8 in the affidavit was deexhibited in evidence and marked as MarkF. MarkF is the copy of collaboration agreement dated 28.04.1994.
(9) Ex.PW1/9 is the GPA dated 28.10.1994 executed by Sh.
Rajinder Singh Dua being general attorney of Smt. Rajinder Kaur in favour of defendant himself, which is deexhibited and marked as MarkC. (10) Ex.PW1/10 in the affidavit is legal notice dated 23.06.2010 which was deexhibited and marked as Mark D. (11) Ex.PW1/11 is the postal receipt which was deexhibited and marked on record as MarkG. (12) Ex.PW1/12 is the legal notice dated 08.05.2013 through which the plaintiff terminated the right of the defendant in the suit property.
(13) Ex.PW1/13 is the original postal receipt dated Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 08.05.2013.
(14) Ex.PW1/14 is the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 01.09.2014 given by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
(15) Ex.PW1/15 are the postal receipts thereof.
(16) Ex.PW1/16 is the legal notice dated 01.06.2000 mentioned as MarkA in the affidavit as the legal notice was sent by the wife of the defendant.
He was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant at length.
16. PW2 Sumeer Bindra, is the son of Late Shamsher Singh and Smt. Rani Bala. He proved his affidavit of evidence as Ex.P2. He relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5, already proved by the plaintiff. Ex.PW2/2 is the affidavit i.e. death certificate of Sh. Shamsher Singh was deexhibited as the same was not found on record. He was also crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
17. On the other hand, the defendant has examined himself as the only witness in support of his defence as DW1. He deposed in consonance with his case. He did not proved any document on record.
18. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case on record and is entitled to the reliefs sought by him in the suit. He argued that the defendant has limited Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 right in the suit property as that of a licencee and his licence was terminated by the plaintiff vide legal notice. He further submitted that the defendant has not been able to prove his defence in as much as he has not filed even a single document on record.
19. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1 and the receipt Ex.PW1/2 are false and forged documents in as much as the date of notarization is prior to the execution of the documents. He further submitted that the date of execution of the said documents is 27.09.1993, whereas the date of notarization is 27.08.1993, hence, these documents cannot be relied upon being notarized prior to the date of execution. He further submitted that father of PW2 had filed a suit for possession against Sh. Man Mohan Puri and Pushpinder and if that is so, then Smt. Rani Bala could not have entered into any compromise with Sh. Man Mohan Puri. He further argued that the testimony of PW2 cannot be relied upon as he was only a boy of 1314 years of age at the time of execution of the documents Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 and, therefore his testimony cannot be relied upon after a gap of 25 years, he could not have deposed as he was examined after 25 years. He further argued that the plaintiff has not proved on record that Smt. Rani Bala was the owner of the suit property as her title was under heavy cloud. He further argued that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in as much as he has not sought the declaration and without seeking the Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 relief of declaration the suit for possession cannot be decreed.
20. In rebuttal Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendant has nowhere challenged the ownership of the plaintiff, rather the defendant has agreed that the plaintiff belongs to Smt. Rani Bala. He has further argued that the defendant has not challenged the title documents of the suit property. He further argued that the defendant has not filed any suit for cancellation of the documents executed by Smt. Rani Bala which should have been filed as the defendant is aware of the documents. He further argued that in his affidavit the defendant has come up with a new story altogether which was never pleaded. He further argued that the defendant himself denied specifically the averments of the plaintiff and if not denied specifically the same shall be deemed to be admitted by the defendant. He further relied upon the following authorities in support of his contentions:
(i) AIR 1967 (SC) 109 (Para 10), 1998 (72) DLT 761 (Para
13), 141 (2007) DLT 209, 1998 RLR 598 (SC), 2000 RLR 50, 2003 (8) SCC 673, 2007 (6) SCC 401.
(ii) AIR 1954 SC 355, AIR 1974 SC 471, AIR 1967 SC 341.
21. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the evidence on record carefully.
Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21
22. My issuewise finding is as follows: Re: Issue No. 1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of property in suit? OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and PW2 Sumeer Bindra. The plaintiff has relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5. Ex.PW1/1 is the agreement to sell and purchase dated 27.09.1993 executed by Smt. Rani Bala in favour of the father of the plaintiff. On the same day documents Ex.PW1/2, registered Will of Smt. Rani Bala in favour of the father of the plaintiff as well as Ex.PW1/3, a receipt for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ executed by Smt. Rani Bala were executed.
The defendant has challenged the Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/3 saying that these were forged and fabricated as the same were notarized on 27.08.1993 whereas they were executed on 27.09.1993. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff rebutted this argument saying that it was only a mistake on the point of notary public who affixed the date of August, 1993 instead of September, 1993. This Court is not in agreement with Ld. Counsel for the defendant. There is no cross examination on this aspect by the defendant. Unless and until the witnesses are crossexamined on a particular aspect and is given a chance to offer the explanation, his testimony cannot be put under any doubt. Even no evidence has been offered by the defendant in this regard to shake the credibility of PW2.
Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 The Ld. Counsel for the defendant further argued that the documents Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 have not been proved on record as per law. These documents were executed by the mother of the PW2 in favour of the father of the plaintiff. The father of PW2 is the witness to the said document. PW2 has categorically proved that on the date of execution of the said documents he had gone alongwith is parents and seen all the parties signing and executing the documents. The argument of Ld. Counsel for defendant that the testimony of PW2 cannot be relied upon as his testimony was recorded after a gap of 20/25 years of the execution of the documents, in my opinion, has no merits as there no strict rule of law that a boy of tender years of 13/14 years of age, cannot recall anything which happened 20/25 years ago. No hard and fast rule can be created in this regard. Moreover, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant has failed to file any judgment to this effect. Hence, the contention of Ld. Counsel is liable to be rejected.
The next argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the defendant is that the plaintiff has not sought the declaration to the effect that he is the owner of the suit property and simplicitor suit for possession is not maintainable. In Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, it was held that when a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession is the remedy otherwise a suit for Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 possession is maintainable. A cloud is said to have raised over a person's title when some apparent defect in his title to the property or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. When the said law is applied to the facts of the present case, it comes out that the defendant has never challenged the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. Defendant has failed to bring on record any document that he has ever challenged the title of the plaintiff over the suit property or the title of any third person is made out thereto. Moreover, in the judgment of Ashok Kumar Vs. Mohd. Rustam and Another, RFA No. 420/2015, D.O.D. 22.01.2016; the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that a relief of declaration of title to immovable property is implicit in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property in as much as without establishing the title to the suit property, if disputed, no decree for the relief of possession can be passed. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments, I am of the opinion that the suit of the plaintiff for possession without seeking the relief of declaration is maintainable.
The next question which arises for consideration is that whether the plaintiff has successfully proved his right or interest in the suit property. The defendant argued that the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1 and receipt Ex.PW1/2 are not the registered documents. The defendant has raised objection that without registration they could not have created any interest in the suit property. The submission of Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 Ld. Counsel does not find favour with the Court. The amendment in Section 53A of TPA requiring the compulsory registration of an agreement to sell came into effect from 24.09.2001. The said amendments were prospective in nature. The documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 were executed on 27.09.1993. Therefore, the documents did not need any stamp or the registration thereof. A careful perusal of document Ex.PW1/1 shows that the possession of the suit property has been given to the father of the plaintiff who had occupied the same. Therefore, document Ex.PW1/1 creates a right in favour of the father of the plaintiff in terms of the doctrine of part performance.
The execution of the said documents has been proved by PW1 who has identified the signatures of his father on agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1. On the other hand, PW2 has also identified the signatures of his father and his father being the executant and witness respectively of the said documents. He has categorically deposed that he has seen all the parties signing the document Ex.PW1/1.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant further argued that in view of the judgment of Suraj Lamp And Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana And Others (2012) 1 SCC 656, the agreement to sell did not create any right or interest in favour of father of the plaintiff. This aspect was dealt with by our own Hon'ble High Court in the judgment of Shri Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand And Another, 188 (2012) DLT 53 and it was held that the judgment of Suraj Lamp Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 (Supra), agreements to sell, general power of attorneys and Wills which are validly executed are protected and such documents will have rights flowing under the same in terms of Section 53A of TPA, Section 202 of Indian Contract Act and the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act pertaining to the devolution of properties by a Will i.e. only such documents executed post 24.09.2001 will not have validity if they are not stamped and registered.
Accordingly, in view of the Judgment of Ramesh Chand (Supra) it is clear that the submission of Ld. Counsel for defendant is without any force as the documents were executed much before 24.09.2001 i.e. on 27.09.1993 and, therefore these documents created a right or interest in favour of the father of the plaintiff which devolved upon the plaintiff. Furthermore, the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1 created an interest in favour of father of the plaintiff in the suit property in terms of doctrine of part performance.
A careful perusal of the written statement of the defendant would show that he has not specifically denied the case of the plaintiff. Rather in the preliminary objections he submitted that the property in question belong to one Smt. Rani Bala. However, he raised a defence that a collaboration agreement came to be executed between Rani Bala and him, wherein it was decided that after the construction of first and third floor with roof right would come into his share and space below the terrace comprising of 10'x8' would be used by the defendant as his share. However, the defendant has not probabilized Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 his defence by leading any sort of evidence, be it oral or documentary, in this regard. It is well settled principle of law that if averments in the plaint are not denied specifically in the written statement then the same can be taken as admitted by the defendant. Order 8 Rules 3, 4 and 5 of CPC provides that the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth and when a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively but answer the point of substance. In this aspect the reliance can be placed on the Judgment of M/s. Gyan Chand Brothers Vs. Rattan Lal, MANU/SC/0015/2013. Reference can also be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 538, AIR 2004 SC 230 and AIR 2017 SC 3995. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the defendant has admitted that the suit property belonged to Smt. Rani Bala which was sold by her to the father of the plaintiff vide the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3.
Furthermore, the defendant has not proved any document on record or produced any iota of evidence regarding his right, title or interest in the suit property. No documents at all have been proved by the defendant. A natural corollary can be drawn that the defendant was only a licensee or permissible user in the suit property. The said license has been terminated by the plaintiff vide notice dated 08.05.2013 proved on record as Ex.PW1/12. The plaintiff has also Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 proved the documents which created a right in favour of the father of the plaintiff. This court believes the version of the plaintiff rather the version of the defendant. The defendant appears to be cooking up a false story altogether. It is settled law that a civil suit of this nature is lis between the parties and the Court has to see as to which of the parties is more believable and trustworthy, and in this case in the opinion of the Court the plaintiff appears to be more believable and trustworthy. More so, when the plaintiff has proved the documents showing a right or interest in the suit property in his favour.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion it is held that the plaintiff has proved on record that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 which were executed by Smt. Rani Bala in favour of father of the plaintiff and the same was devolved upon the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant has failed to prove any document on record which could have given a challenge to the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Re: Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
23. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has deposed in his affidavit on oath that the defendant is liable to pay damages/mesne profits as the defendant is in Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21 unauthorized occupation of the suit premises with effect from 31.05.2013, however the plaintiff is claiming damages/mesne profits @ Rs.25,000/ per month from the date of filing of the suit till the vacation of the suit premises by the defendant. A perusal of the cross examination of PW1 conducted by the defendant would reveal that the defendant has not crossexamined PW1 at all on the said aspect. Thus, it is apparently clear on record that the plaintiff has proved the damages/mesne profits @ Rs.25,000/ per month. In the judgment of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Shri Harbhajan Singh And Another RSA No. 155/2016, dated 25.05.2017 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court accepted the rent as Rs.6,000/ per month when there was no cross examination to the rate of rent on behalf of the defendant. In view of the aforesaid, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussions the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed with the following reliefs: (1) A decree for possession in respect of shop on the ground floor of property No. 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi more specifically shown in red in the site plan annexed with the plaint is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant is directed to remove his belongings and to deliver the peaceful physical possession thereof to the plaintiff.
(2) A decree for damages/mesne profits @ Rs.25,000/ per
Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21
month in respect of shop on the ground floor of property No. 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from the date of filing of the suit till the vacant and physical possession is delivered to the plaintiff.
(3) The plaintiff shall also be entitled to recover interest pendente lite and future on the aforesaid amount @ 6% per annum from the defendant from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
25. The costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. However, the preparation of the decree sheet shall be subject to the payment of deficient court fees, if any, on the reliefs granted to the plaintiff.
27. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally
signed by
HEM HEM RAJ
Date:
RAJ 2020.12.24
17:07:39
+0530
Pronounced in the open court (Hem Raj)
on 24th December, 2020. Additional District Judge8 Central:Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Suit No. 610049 of 2016 Page no. 21 of 21