Delhi District Court
Pushpa Aggarwal vs Parag Jain on 18 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016
PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN
CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015
In the matter of:
SMT. PUSHPA AGGARWAL,
W/o SH. ROSHAN LAL AGGARWAL,
R/o B-338, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110065.
........ Plaintiff
Versus
SH. PARAG JAIN,
PROP/PARTNER/DIRECTOR,
M/S RKJ ALLOYS
S/o SH. R.K. JAIN,
R/o C-483, YOJNA VIHAR,
DELHI.
2nd ADDRESS:
32-B, GROUND FLOOR,
FRIENDS COLONY INDL. AREA,
G.T. ROAD, SHAHDARA,
DELHI-10095.
........ Defendant
Date of Institution : 05.01.2015
Date of reserving of judgment : 10.07.2024
Date of Judgment : 18.07.2024
Decision : DECREED
Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2024.07.18
15:13:27 +0530
___________________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016
PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 1 of 14
CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF DAMAGES, MESNE PROFIT AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS PLEADED IN THE PLAINT
1. The brief facts which are narrated by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is sole and absolute owner of the Industrial property bearing no. 32-B, measuring 1200 sq. Ft., Friends Industrial Area, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095. That the defendant was inducted as a tenant in respect of a Shed on area measuring 800 sq. Ft. on the ground floor surrounded by Four Pucca Walls covered by stone slabs forming part of property no. 32-B, Friends Colony Industrial Area, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095 (hereinafter referred to as "suit property" and particularly the same is shown in red colour in the site plan). That the defendant was paying the rent regularly without any delay or default, hence, the tenancy as well as the monthly rent amount of the defendant was enhanced from time to time and lastly it was Rs. 5,545/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. That the defendant started committing default in payment of rent and he was in arrears of rent for the period 01.04.2014 onwards. That the suit property is lying locked from last more than six years. That the grandson of plaintiff namely Sh. Kashish Aggarwal who is 24 years, has already completed his studies. That after completion of studies, Mr. Kashish Aggarwal joined his father in the business and gain sufficient experience of work and after gaining knowledge, he showed his willingness to settle himself and for that purpose he wants to establish his own factory for earning his livelihood. That the suit property is the only industrial plot of plaintiff and apart from that property, she does not have any other property for meeting her requirement for settling her grandson. That the plaintiff requires the suit property in question for her personal bonafide need which is under possession of the defendant being tenant, for her own bonafide need being suitable accommodation for the purpose of plaintiff. That the plaintiff does not own any other suitable accommodation for meeting her commercial requirement, hence, she verbally requested the defendant for vacating the suit property. That the plaintiff issued a legal Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.07.18 ___________________________________________________________________________________ 15:13:35 +0530 CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 2 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 notice dated 10.08.2014 through her advocate under Regd. AD. Cover and Speed Post and called upon him to hand over vacant and peaceful physical possession of suit property on or before 31.08.2014 and further intimated him that in case of his failure to handover possession of the suit property he shall be liable to pay damages @ Rs. 20,000/- per month excluding electricity charges w.e.f. 01.09.2014 till the date of handing over the possession of suit property to the plaintiff and also called upon her to pay entire arrears of rent within fifteen days from the receipt of this Legal notice. That despite service of legal notice, the defendant partly complied with the terms of the legal notice by paying the entire arrears of rent but he did not vacated the suit property. That the suit property is required by the plaintiff for the purpose of settling her grandson as her grandson has been planning to setup a factory for earning his livelihood and suit property is very suitable for the said requirement and she has no other industrial plot or property in her name. That as the tenancy of the defendant has already been terminated by the plaintiff vide notice dated 10.08.2014 but the defendant has failed to vacate the suit property, hence, possession of the defendant in respect of the suit property is of an unauthorized occupant and he is liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit property without any right or authority @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. excluding electricity charges to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.09.2014 till the date of handing over possession which comes to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- upto 30.11.2014. Apart from the said amount of Rs. 60000/-, the defendant is also liable to pay future damages @ Rs. 20,000/- per month both from 01.12.2014 till the date of handing over the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the suit property. That now the plaintiff had come to know that the defendant is trying to create third party interest in respect of the suit property either by parting with possession or by any other mode. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of possession, recovery of damages, mesne profits, permanent injunctions.
2. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. Defendant appeared and filed WS.
Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL
GOEL Date:
2024.07.18
15:13:39 +0530
___________________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 3 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 BRIEF FACTS PLEADED IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT.
3. In the written statement filed by defendant, the defendant has taken certain preliminary objections and denied all the averments made in the plaint. It has been averred that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property. It has been further averred that suit is barred under Section 50 of DRC Act as the rent of the suit property is Rs. 1,750/- per month. That the rent of the premises was paid annually in advance. That the defendant due to financial crisis could not pay the rent for the year 2001 to 2005 and there were arrears of rent for the said period amount to Rs. 84,000/-. That in the year 2005-06, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 34,000/- i.e. Rs. 21,000/- towards arrears of rent, Rs. 10,000/- towards security and Rs. 3,000/- towards maintenance. That in the year 2006-07, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/- i.e. Rs. 42,000/- towards arrears of rent of 2 years, Rs. 10,000/- towards security and Rs. 3,000/- towards maintenance. That in the year 2007-08, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- i.e. Rs. 84,000/- towards arrears of rent, Rs. 30,000/- towards security and Rs. 1,500/- towards maintenance. That in the year, the arrears were cleared and the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 60,500/- i.e. Rs. 21,000/- towards arrears of rent, Rs. 35,000/- towards security and Rs. 4,500/- towards maintenance. That in the year 2009-10 and 2010-11, the defendant made the payment in the similar manner. That the defendant had paid the security amount @ Rs. 40,000/- for the year 2011-12, 2012013 and 2013-14 apart from the annual rent. That on demand of the plaintiff in 2014-15, the defendant paid rent of Rs. 27,312/- i.e. Rs. 16,665 towards security and Rs. 1,897 towards maintenance. That the defendant in total paid a sum of Rs. 2,91,665/- towards refundable security. That the plaintiff has malafidely alleged that she bonafidely required that suit property as the plaintiff had already filed a suit for bonafide requirement against the tenant at the first floor of the said property, which is pending before the court of law and the plaintiff had sold the adjoining property few days back. That the plaintiff represented herself as the caretaker of the suit property and she used to receive the rent as a caretaker and not as a landlord. That the plaintiff has not filed the correct site plan of the suit property.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.07.18 15:13:42 +0530 ___________________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 4 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015
4. The plaintiff has filed replication to the WS of defendant denying the averments made in the WS and reiterating the contents of the plaint.
5. On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 04.01.2016, which are as follows: -
1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property?
OPP.
2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to monetary decree for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards damages from 01.09.2014 to 30.11.2014 and for pendent-lite damages from @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from 01.12.2014 till handing over the possession of the tenanted property? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, restraining defendants from creating third party interest? OPP
4) Relief
6. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1, who led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/A. She relied upon following documents:
1. Ex. PW1/2 Site Plan
2. Ex. PW1/3 Legal Notice
3. Ex. PW1/4 Postal receipt
4. Ex. PW1/5(colly) Statement of account bearing no. 0065710005 in City Bank from 2010 to 2014.
5. Ex. PW1/6 (colly) Statement of account bearing no. 01760120020098 in Kotak Mahindra Bank from 2010 to 2017 Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.07.18 ___________________________________________________________________________________ 15:13:47 +0530 CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 5 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant and she deposed that the property bearing no. 32-B, 130 sq. yards, Friends Industrial Area, G T Road, Shahdara, Delhi in the year 1993-94 in her name. She further deposed that she did not know if she had placed the ownership documents regarding the property on record in this case. She further deposed that she did not remember when the defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit property. She further deposed that she did not know if any written agreement was executed regarding the induction of the defendant as a tenant in the suit property. She further deposed that she cannot say if the defendant was a tenant in the suit property since December 1993 as she is house-wife and her husband look after all these affairs. She further deposed that she had never executed any rent receipt in favour of the defendant. She further deposed that she did not know whether her husband had executed any rent receipts in favour of the defendant or whether she had filed any rent receipt in the present case. She further deposed that she did not know whether her husband used to accept the rent in cash or by way of cheque. She further deposed that she did not know that the defendant did not pay the rent between the period 2002 to 2005. She further deposed that she did not know whether the defendant had paid security amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- which is due to be paid by them.
Thereafter, PE stands closed.
7. In order to prove his defence, the defendant examined himself as DW-1, who led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW 1/A and relied upon statement of account which is Ex. DW1/1.
DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that his father was inducted as tenant in the suit property since 1976. He further deposed that in the year 1976, the rate of rent was Rs. 1,750/- per month as disclosed by his father. He further deposed that there was no security provision for the rented premises at that time and the provision of security of the suit property was decided by him and the son of the plaintiff and no document was executed Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.07.18 ___________________________________________________________________________________ 15:13:50 +0530 CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 6 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 regarding the same. He further deposed that security provision was started since 2006 and the said discussion regarding the security was done in 2006 itself. He further deposed that at that time, no particular amount of security was fixed between him and the son of the plaintiff. He further deposed that the last payment of rent of Rs. 27,312/- was given in approximately in September, 2014. He further deposed that it is correct that no payment was made of rent after year 2014. He further deposed that he started paying the rent to the plaintiff after the death of his father on 29.07.1993. He further deposed that he did not know the rate of rent at the time of inception of tenancy of his father. He further deposed that he had not placed on record any rent receipt or any document which shows the payment of rent and security as the same was never issued by the plaintiff since day one. He further deposed that it is correct that in Ex. PW1/D1 nothing is mentioned about the security and the only rent is mentioned and no payment is mentioned to be paid or to be payable towards security amount. He further deposed that it is correct that the payment of rent of Rs. 27,312 given by him in September, 2014 is for 5 months.
Thereafter, DE stands closed.
8. I have heard the final arguments and have carefully gone through the case file.
9. Issuewise findings as follows:-
Issue no. 1,2 & 3.
Since, all these issues are interconnected and can be decided by common findings, all these issues have been taken together.
The burden to prove these issues is on the plaintiff. In order to prove these issues, the plaintiff has relied upon certain documents which have been exhibited by the plaintiff during her examination. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff in the suit property @ Rs. 5,545/- per month excluding electricity and water charges and the defendant Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL ___________________________________________________________________________________ GOEL Date: 2024.07.18 CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 15:13:54 +0530 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 7 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 had not paid the rent since 01.09.2014. The defendant admitted in his WS that he is the tenant in the suit property but denied the ownership of the plaintiff qua the suit property and averred that the plaintiff had given the suit property on rent as caretaker of the suit property. The defendant also denied the rate of rent as Rs. 5,545/- per month and averred that the rate of rent of the suit property is Rs. 1,750/- per month and the present suit is barred as per DRC Act.
Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of per- son in possession and lays down as follows :-
"No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such li- cence was given."
In S. Thangappan vs P. Padmavathy, AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3584 , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that :-
"Section 116 of the Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. Possession and permission being established, estoppel would bind the tenant during the continuance of the tenancy and until he surrenders his possession. The words during the continuance of the tenancy have been interpreted to mean during the continuance of the possession that was received under the tenancy in question, and the courts have repeatedly laid down that estoppel operates even after the termination of the tenancy so that a tenant who had been let into possession, however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly surrendered possession, cannot dispute the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. The rule of estoppel is thus restricted not only in extent but also in time i.e. restricted to the title of the landlord and during the continuance of the tenancy; and by necessary implication, it follows that a tenant is not estopped, when he is under threat of eviction by the title paramount, from contending that the landlord had no title before the tenancy commenced or that the title of the landlord has since come to an end."
In Rita Lal vs Raj Kumar Singh, AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3341, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that :-
"The rule of estoppel between landlord and tenant enacted in Section 116 of the Evid- ence Act has three main features: (i) the tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his landlord over the tenancy premises at the beginning of the tenancy, (ii) such estoppel con- tinues to operate so long as the tenancy continues and unless the tenant has surrendered possession to the landlord, and (iii) Section 116 of the Evidence Act is not the whole law Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL ___________________________________________________________________________________ Date: 2024.07.18 15:13:58 +0530 CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 8 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 of estoppel between the landlord and tenant, The principles emerging from Sec- tion 116 can be extended in their application and also suitably adapted to suit the require- ment of an individual case."
In Payal Vision Ltd vs Radhika Choudhary, AIRONLINE 2012 SC 723, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that :-
"13. This Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, has also ruled that in a suit for eviction by landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord because of Section 116 of the Act. The Judicial Committee in Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Deo v. Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd., when had occasion to examine the contention based on the words 'at the beginning of the tenancy' in Section 116 of the Evidence Act, pro- nounced that they do not give a ground for a person already in possession of land becoming tenant of another, to contend that there is no estoppel against his denying his subsequent lessor's title. Ever since, the accepted position is that Section 116 of the Evidence Act ap- plies and estops even a person already in possession as tenant under one landlord from denying the title of his subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges him as his land- lord by attornment or conduct. Therefore, a tenant of immovable property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another landlord by accepting him to be the owner who had derived title from the former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground."
In view of the statutory law and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgments mentioned above, it is clear that the defendant cannot deny the title of the plaintiff qua the suit property. The defendant specifically admitted that he is the tenant in the suit property and the suit property is given on rent to the defendant by the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff failed to file any ownership document or rent agreement qua the suit property, will not help the defendant in proving his defence.
The defendant during his cross-examination deposed that "it is correct that the payment of rent of Rs. 27,312 given be me in September,2014 is for 5 months" and if the said amount of Rs. 27,312/- is divided by 5 (months), then it comes to Rs. 5,462.40/- for one month, which is more than Rs. 1,750/-. At one point of time, the defendant during his cross-examination deposed that he did not know the rate of rent at the time of inception of tenancy of his father and at other point of time during his cross-examination, the defendant deposed that in 1976, the rate of Digitally signed by MAYANK GOEL MAYANK ___________________________________________________________________________________ GOEL Date: 2024.07.18 CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 15:14:01 +0530 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 9 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 rent was Rs. 1,750/- per month as disclosed by his father. This shows that the defendant has hearsay knowledge about the rate of rent at the time of inception of tenancy of his father and he is giving hearsay deposition regarding the rate of rent, which is not admissible in evidence as per law. Moreover, the defendant during his cross-examination also deposed that he had not placed on record any rent receipt of the suit property. This shows that the defendant has not placed on record any rent receipt to show that the rate of rent of the suit property is Rs. 1,750/-
The defendant has placed on record the statement of account Ex. DW1/1 and ledger account as well bank statement which is Ex. DW1/P1 (colly 9 pages) to show that the rate of rent is Rs. 1,750/-. The defendant has not placed on record mandatory certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act along with the said statement of account, ledger account as well as bank statement and as such these documents cannot be read in evidence. For the same, I may gainfully referred to the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in "Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors, 2014 SCC Online SC 732 " that any documentary evidence by way of Electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Section 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non-obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the condition mentioned under sub-Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or the production of the original. The very admissibility of such document i.e. electronic document which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions mentioned under Section 65B (2) which are as follows:-
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL ___________________________________________________________________________________ Date: 2024.07.18 15:14:05 +0530 CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 10 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 the purposes of any activities carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly red into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
It is further clarified that the person need only to say in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, CD, VCD, Pen-Drive etc. pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in the evidence.
Section 65B(4) provides about the contents of the certificate that certificate is to say:
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are two hallmark pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision etc. without such safeguards, the Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL ___________________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 GOEL Date: 2024.07.18 15:14:10 +0530 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 11 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. Only if electronic evidence is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A i.e. opinion of examiner of electronic evidence. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India.
Moreover, the defendant during his cross-examination deposed that it is correct that in Ex. DW1/P1, no payment is mentioned to be paid or payable towards security amount and only rent is mentioned. Therefore, the defendant failed to prove that the rate of rent of the suit property is Rs. 1,750/- and not Rs. 5,545/- and further failed to prove that the present suit is barred as per DRC Act. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession qua the suit property against the defendant.
Per contra, the plaintiff has also failed to prove that the rent of the suit property is Rs. 5,545/- per month as averred in the plaint. Moreover, no proof has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show that the rent of the suit property is Rs. 5,545/- per month.
The defendant during his cross-examination duly admitted that he had not paid any rent after the year 2014 and the last rent paid by the defendant is in August, 2014. Therefore, it is specifically proved that the defendant had not paid the rent to the plaintiff since 01.09.2014. The plaintiff has claimed the damages, future and pendente lite damages @ Rs 20,000/- per month from the defendant since 01.09.2014 till vacation of the suit property which is exorbitant and the interest of justice would suffice if the plaintiff is awarded damages future and pendente lite damages @ Rs. 5,000/- per month from 01.09.2014 till vacation of the suit property.
Accordingly, the issue no. 1, 2 & 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against Digitally signed by the defendants. MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.07.18 15:14:14 +0530 ___________________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 12 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015 Relief
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in the following terms:
(i) The defendant, his heirs, successors, agents, assignees, nominees and representatives etc. are hereby directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. one shed on area measuring 800 sq. ft. on the ground floor surrounded by Four pucca walls covered by stone slabs forming part of the property no. 32-B, Friends Colony Industrial Area, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095, more specifically shown in the red colour in the site plan.
(ii) The defendant shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,650/- (@ Rs. 5,000/- per month) towards damages for use and occupation from 01.09.2014 to 04.01.2015 alongwith future and pendent-lite interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of filing of the present suit i.e. 05.01.2015 till its realization, to the plaintiff. The defendant shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5,72,150/- (@ Rs. 5,000/-
per month) towards damages for use and occupation from 05.01.2015 to 18.07.2024 alongwith future and pendent-lite interest @ 8% per annum from the date of judgment of the present suit i.e. 18.07.2024 till its realization, to the plaintiff. The defendant shall also pay damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 5,000/- per month from 18.07.2024 till vacation of the suit property, to the plaintiff.
(iii) The defendant, his heirs, successors, agents, assignees, nominees and representatives etc. are hereby restrained from selling, alienating, mortgaging, gifting, part with the possession in full or part or creating third party interest of whatsoever nature in respect of the suit property i.e. one shed on area measuring 800 sq. ft. on the ground floor surrounded by Four pucca walls covered by stone slabs forming part of the property no. 32-B, Friends Colony Industrial Area, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095, more specifically shown in the red colour in the site plan.
Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2024.07.18
15:14:17 +0530
___________________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 13 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015
11. Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open Court. by MAYANK
On this 18th July, 2024 MAYANK GOEL
This Judgment contains 14 pages GOEL Date:
2024.07.18
and is signed by me. 15:14:21 +0530
(MAYANK GOEL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
___________________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL SUIT No. 8804/2016 PUSHPA AGGARWAL Vs. PARAG JAIN Page No. 14 of 14 CNR No. DLSH03-001029-2015