Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Babu Gupta vs M/S. Garg Trading Company on 11 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS. No. 10963/16
In the matter of:
Sh. Ram Babu Gupta
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Dass
R/o 17/1, Rohtak Road,
Nangloi, New Delhi.
........Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Garg Trading Company
Through Its Partner / Proprietor
Sh. Ramesh
17/1, Rohtak Road, Nangloi,
Near Bank of Baroda,
Delhi - 110041.
Also At:
1075, Anaj Mandi,
Rohtak, Haryana.
.......Defendant
Date of filing of the Suit : 27.05.2015
Date of reserving order : 23.02.2018*
Date of pronouncement : 11.07.2018
*On 23.03.2018, I had gone for training programme. On 21.04.2018, I was on half day
leave. On 21.05.2018, no order could be passed as I was giving dictation in other
matter bearing MCA. No. 02/17 titled as "Jagdish Vij Vs. Rajesh Vij".
J U D G M E N T
Brief Facts:
1. Plaintiff's case:
1.1 The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 1/23 reliefs :
(a) The plaintiff has sought recovery of possession of one hall in property bearing No. 17/1, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, New Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
(b) Plaintiff has sought arrears of rent @ Rs. 8000/ per month w.e.f April' 2015 and 20 days for the month of May'2015 (The total amount as claimed is Rs. 13,332/).
(c) Plaintiff has sought the mesne profits / damages @ Rs. 500/ per day from the date of filing of the suit till handing over of the actual vacant physical possession of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff.
1.2 It is claimed that the plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing No. 17/1, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, New Delhi. The defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property for rent of Rs. 8000/ per month. It is further stated that although the rent was Rs. 8000/ per month the receipt was issued for the amount of Rs. 4000/ per month.
1.3 The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 2/23
15.05.2015 by serving legal notice dated 29.04.2015. It was further stated in this legal notice that if the notice reaches the hands of the defendant, the tenancy would terminate on the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice.
1.4 As per the report of postal authorities (SIC), notice sent to the defendant at Delhi address was served on 01.05.2015 and notice served to the defendant at Rohtak, Haryana address was served on 05.05.2015. In any case the tenancy stands terminated latest by 20.05.2015. After the service of this notice, the plaintiff received one letter from Sh. Subhash Chand Garg claiming himself to be a partner of the defendant firm. In this letter it is claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 4000/ per month. 1.5 The defendant is in arrears of rent @ Rs. 8000/ per month for the period April 2015 and 20 days of the month of May' 2015. The total rent due is Rs. 13,332/. The plaintiff is not claiming anything on account of unpaid electricity bill.
1.6 On 28.04.2015, one employee of the defendant handed over the keys of the suit property to the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff gave information to the police but in the night on the same day, the Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 3/23 defendant (SIC) created a scene and under threat of the police the keys were taken back from the plaintiff.
2. Defendant's case:
2.1 Written statement filed by one Sh. Subhash Chand claiming himself to be a partner of the defendant firm. It is claimed that the present suit is filed in collusion with Sh. Ramesh Chand who is only a sleeping partner of the defendant firm. There are six partners in the defendant firm. They have not been joined as defendants in the present suit. For this reason, the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the parties. 2.2 Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Ms. Ginni Devi, Sh. Siri Bhagwan, Sh. Rajender Prasad, Sh. Madan Lal & Sh. Madhu Sudhan are shown as Cobhumidars / Coowners in the sale deed dated 01.07.1980 (on the basis of which the present suit has been filed). They have not been joined either as plaintiffs or defendants in the present suit. 2.3 The suit is barred under Section 185 and other provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act.
2.4 The notice of termination of tenancy is not valid as the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of animal fodder Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 4/23 which is an agricultural purpose.
2.5 The rate of rent of the suit property is Rs. 400/ per month and due to this reason, the suit is barred by DRC Act. Further, the defendant has plainly and simply denied the case of the plaintiff.
3. ISSUES:
3.1 Vide order dated 26.11.2015, Ld. Predecessor framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession with regard to the suit property i.e Hall / Godown part of the property No. 17/1, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, New Delhi ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 13,332/- as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits / damages @ Rs. 500/-
per day as prayed in para no. C of prayer clause . OPP
4. Whether the present suit is barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act ? OPD
5. Whether the present suit is barred under DRC Act ? OPD
6. Whether the defendantis an authorized person to file W/S ? Onus on both the parties.
7. Relief.
Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 5/23 4. EVIDENCE: 4.1 Plaintiff's Evidence: 4.2 Vide statement dated 29.04.2016, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
stated that the plaintiff did not want to examine himself as a witness in this case.
4.3 Plaintiff examined his wife Ms. Kusum Gupta as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1. She relied upon the documents i.e Ex. PW1/X SPA, Ex. PW1/A site plan, Ex. PW1/C legal notice dated 24.05.2015, Ex. PW1/D two postal receipts along with Internet generated copy of tracking report & Ex. PW1/F letter dated 15.05.2015 along with envelop. Ex. PW1/B & Ex. PW1/E marked as Mark A & MarkB i.e photocopy of sale deed dated 01.07.1980 and Copy of three rent receipts.
4.4 PW1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
4.5 Vide statement dated 15.02.2017, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff closed P.E. Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 6/23 5. Defendant's Evidence: 5.1 Sh. Suresh Kumar one of the partner of defendant firm
examined himself as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. He relied upon the documents i.e Ex. DW1/1 partnership deed dated 01.04.1996, Ex. DW1/2 supplementary partnership deed dated 08.04.1996, Ex. DW1/3 an assessment intimation of income tax in respect of defendant firm, Ex. PW1/4 an assessment order in the name of defendant firm for year 199697. He also relied upon six photographs and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D6. 5.2 Defendant examined Sh. Manoj Kaushik, Record Keeper, Department of Trade and Taxes, ITO, Government of N.C.T, Delhi as DW2. He was a summoned witness and brought the summoned record in respect of M/s. Garg Trading Company having TIN number 07910124277. Record pertaining to assessment order for the year 1996 97 of M/s. Garg Trading is not traceable in the office. 5.3 DW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
5.4 Vide statement dated 28.11.2017, Ld. Counsel for the Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 7/23 defendants closed D.E. 6. Final arguments heard. 6.1 It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the rate of
rent of the suit property is Rs. 8000/ per month. The plaintiff was not examined as a witness. His wife was examined as a witness. Written statement has not been filed by Sh. Ramesh Chand who was arrayed as a defendant. Written statement has been filed by Sh. Subhash Chand who claims to be a partner of the defendant firm.
6.2 Garg Trading Company is not a partnership firm. Sh. Ramesh Chand is the proprietor of this firm. The partnership deed relied upon by the defendant mentions the address of the tenanted premises as 1/17 (SIC) where the said firm was carrying out business. The suit of the plaintiff is with regard to the property bearing No. 17/1 (SIC). In the written statement there is no mention of Ms. Ginni Devi being the landlady. However, the defendant has raised this defence which is beyond pleadings. In the rent receipt Ex. PW1/D2 the address of the tenanted premises is mentioned as 11/17 (SIC). In this receipt it is stated that the rent is given for the period 01.05.1992 to 30.10.1992 @ Rs. 400/ per Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 8/23 month. This amount should be Rs. 2400/ whereas the receipt is for Rs. 3000/. In cross examination dated 10.11.2017, DW1 stated that the partnership business is being run since 1987 whereas in the cross examination dated 15.02.2017 of PW1 suggestion was given that suit property was let out in the year 199192. Defendant further claims that since the inception of the business of the defendant firm, the business is being carried out in the tenanted premises / suit property. The defendant firm might have taken on rent other property before 199192 from Ms. Ginni Devi. No issue regarding landlord tenant relationship was framed. This implies that the landlord tenant relationship is admitted. 6.3 Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that in the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff the names of all the cobhumidhars are mentioned this includes Ms. Ginni Devi also. The defendant has not specifically claimed Ms. Ginni Devi as landlady. In para no. 3 of the replication, it is admitted by the plaintiff that the said Sh. Subhash Chand might have been illegally put in possession of the suit property. Ex. PW 1/F was sent by Sh. Subhash Chand. Plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the suit property.
Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 9/23 6.4 Written submissions filed on behalf of the both the parties perused.
COURT'S FINDINGS AND REASONING: Now, issuewise findings are as under:
7. ISSUE NO.4: Whether the present suit is barred Under Section 185 of Delhi Reforms Act ? OPD The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant.
7.1 In this regard, defendant has relied upon the Judgments "Subhadara Vs. Surender Singh & Ors." RSA NO. 255/2015, "Subhadara Vs. Ravinder Singh Ors." RSA No. 256/2015 & "Subhadara Vs. Vijender Singh Ors." RSA No. 259/2015 decided on 23.03.2016 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. On the other hand plaintiff has relied upon the Judgment "NB Singh (HUF) Vs. M/s. Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd." I.A Nos. 13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS (OS) 2311/2006 decided on 29.05.2009.
7.2 It was contended on behalf of the defendant that in "Subhadara's Case (Supra), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that DLR Act could apply even to the land situated inside the "Lal Dora".
Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 10/23 7.3 I have perused the Judgment delivered in "Subhadara's case.
The ratio in this Judgment is that for seeking declaration of title to the land covered under Section 3 (12) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the reference to a Civil Court has to be made by the Revenue Court. The parties cannot straightaway come to the Civil Court. In the present case there is no question / issue regarding the ownership of the suit property. The plaintiff has nowhere sought any declaration of title regarding any land much less any land covered under Section 3 (12) of DLR Act. On the other hand, the plaintiff has relied upon the Judgment delivered in "NB Singh's (HUF) case (Supra), wherein it was held that a property ceases to be agricultural property if it is not used for agricultural purposes. Even the name of Bhumidar in the Revenue record is of no consequence with regard to any suit for recovery of possession. In the present case the issue is with regard to recovery of possession of the suit property by the landlord from the tenant i.e the plaintiff and defendant respectively (as claimed by the plaintiff). The Judgment delivered in "NB Singh's (HUF) case (Supra), is applicable to the facts of the present case.
7.4 Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 11/23 and against the defendant. 8. ISSUE NO.5: Whether the present suit is barred under DRC Act ? OPD
The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant.
8.1 In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed that the rate of rent is Rs. 8000/ per month. Although the receipts were issued @ Rs. 4000/ per month. On the other hand, the defendant has claimed that the rate of rent is Rs. 400/ per month. Plaintiff produced three rent receipts MarkB (collectively) (Later original were produced and the same are Ex. DW 1/P1 to Ex. DW1/P3). These rent receipts show the rent being paid @ of Rs. 4000/ per month. No booklet containing the other part (the part retained by the person issuing a receipt) has been produced. It is a matter of common practice that the person receiving the amount (in this the rent) issues the receipt under his / her signatures. In the present case none of the receipts Ex. DW1/P1 to Ex. DW1/P3 bear the signatures of property owner i.e the landlord. These receipts are allegedly signed by Sh. Ramesh Chand i.e the person who was initially arrayed as plaintiff (In this matter the written statement was filed by Sh. Subhash Chand who claims to be one of the partner of M/s. Garg Trading Co. In the written Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 12/23 statement he stated that the suit has been filed in collusion with Sh. Ramesh Chand who is only a sleeping partner in M/s. Garg Trading Company). As per common practice the person receiving the amount issues the receipt and the same is given to the person paying the amount. The booklet from which the receipt is issued has one part of the receipt retained in it. The receipts Ex. DW1/P1 to Ex. DW1/P3 are apparently that part from the booklet which is generally given to the person paying the amount. The plaintiff has not produced the booklet from which these rent receipts were issued. It is not clear how come these receipts are in the possession of the plaintiff whereas these counterfoils should have been in the possession of the person who is paying the amount since these are proof of payment made by the tenant. There is no explanation why the tenant after having paid the rent to the plaintiff would not retained the receipts and give the same to the plaintiff. In such circumstances these receipts do not inspire any confidence of the court and the same are of no help to the case of the plaintiff. As already observed above Sh. Ramesh Chand did not file the written statement. During cross examination dated 10.11.2017, these rent receipts Ex. DW1/P1 to Ex. DW1/P3 were put Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 13/23 to DW1. He denied that the same are signed by Sh. Ramesh Chand. The plaintiff never made any efforts / application to examine Sh. Ramesh Chand for proving his alleged signatures on the receipts Ex. DW1/P1 to Ex. DW1/P3.
8.2 On the other hand, the defendant has relied upon the rent receipt MarkPW1/D2. The same was put to PW1 during her cross examination dated 15.02.2017. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that this rent receipt is allegedly for 01.05.1992 to 30.10.1992 i.e for a period of 6 months (inclusive of both May and October'1992). It was pointed out that the month of October has 31 days and not 30 days as mentioned in the receipts. Further, rent for six months @ Rs. 400/ per month will be totalling to Rs. 2400/ and not Rs. 3000/ as mentioned in the receipt Mark PW1/D2. It is pertinent to observe that in this receipt Ms. Ginni Devi wife of Sh. Phool Chand is shown as the owner of the property. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that nowhere in the written statement the defendant has claimed Ms. Ginni Devi to be the landlady. Any contention regarding Ms. Ginni Devi being the landlady is beyond the pleadings of the defendant. Ms. Ginni Devi is not mentioned Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 14/23 as a landlady in the written statement. As such this fact is beyond the pleadings that Ms. Ginni Devi is a landlady. Further, in this receipt Mark PW1/D2 the address of the property is mentioned as 11/17, Rohtak Road, Nangloi. In view of this the rent receipt Ex. PW1/D2 is also not reliable.
8.3 The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. It is the defendant who is required to show that suit is barred by the DRC Act. In view of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the only point regarding applicability of the DRC Act is pertaining to the rate of monthly rent. Although, onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant still the plaintiff is primafacie required to show that the rate of rent is Rs. 4000/ per month or above Rs. 3500/ per month. Thereafter, the onus will shift upon the defendant. The only evidence produced by the plaintiff regarding the rate of rent is unreliable. In such circumstances, the oral evidence of the plaintiff regarding the rate of rent cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has failed to show primafacie that the rate of rent is above Rs. 3500/ per month.
Judgment CS. No. 10963/16
Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 15/23
8.4 In view of the above issue no. 5 is decided in favour of
defendant and against the plaintiff.
9. ISSUE NO.6: Whether the defendant is an authorized person
to file W/S ? Onus on both the parties
The onus to prove this issue is upon both the parties. 9.1 Plaintiff filed the present suit against M/s. Garg Trading Co. a partnership firm through Sh. Ramesh Chand. Written statement was filed by Sh. Subhash Chand. He claimed that he is one of the partner of M/s. Garg Tranding Co. In this regard partnership deed Ex. DW1/1 and supplementary partnership deed Ex. DW1/2 were filed. However, in the written statement it is nowhere mentioned that Sh. Subhash Chand was authorized by the remaining partners to file the written statement and contest the case. No authorization letter / power of attorney has been produced in evidence to show that Sh. Subhash Chand was authorized to file the present written statement and represent M/s. Garg Trading Co. a partnership firm.
9.2 In view of the above, issue no. 6 is decided in favour of the Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 16/23 plaintiff and against the defendant. 10. ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of
possession with regard to the suit property i.e Hall / Godown part of property No. 17/1, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, New Delhi ? OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
10.1 It is pertinent to observe that the plaintiff did not examine himself as PW. Ms. Kusum Gupta wife of the plaintiff examined herself as PW1. She has relied upon SPA Ex. PW1/X . The suit was filed by the plaintiff himself and not through any attorney. In the power of attorney Ex. PW1/X it is stated that the plaintiff has authorized his wife Ms. Kusum Gupta to appear in the court and depose on his behalf. This power of attorney is clearly in contravention of Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act.
10.2 In this regard, the defendant has relied upon the Judgment titled as "Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. And others" AIR 2005 SC 439 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it was held that the term "Act" as used in Order 3 Rule 1 & 2 CPC Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 17/23 would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. 10.3 The testimony of PW1 shall be scrutinized according to the parameters for the oral evidence as laid down in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/1 Ms. Kusum Gupta has specifically stated that she is well aware about the facts and circumstances of the case. She used to collect rent from the defendant and also used to deal with the property (SIC). Further, she has deposed about notice regarding termination of tenancy. During cross examination, it was asked to PW1 "Are you aware of the circumstances and facts at the time of filing of the plaint by your husband and prior to execution of the attorney"? She replied that she was aware about the circumstances and facts. The testimony of PW1 is direct and as such not hit by Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act.
10.4 It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that in the entire written statement, the defendant is silent about landlord tenant relationship. There is no specific mention that Ms. Ginni Devi is the landlady. The introduction of her name in this case by the defendant is beyond the pleadings of the defendant. I have perused the written Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 18/23 statement of the defendant, it is nowhere mentioned that the defendant firm is the tenant of Ms. Ginni Devi. The name of Ms. Ginni Devi is appearing in the sale deed MarkA. In this very sale deed the name of Sh. Ram Babu i.e the plaintiff is also appearing. At best Ms. Ginni Devi could be one of coowners of the suit property. It is the admitted case of the defendant that he is a tenant in the suit property. In such circumstances the burden is upon the tenant to plead under whose landlordship he was inducted as a tenant in the suit property. In the written statement the defendant admitted that he is tenant in the suit property. In the entire written statement he has not specified under whose landlordship he is occupying the suit property as a tenant. 10.5 In the plaint the plaintiff has mentioned the address of the suit property as 17/1, Rohtak Road, Nangloi. The defendant has not led any specific evidence regarding this address. However in the partnership deed Ex. DW1/1 the address of place of business is mentioned as 1/17, Rohtak Road, Nangloi. Further, in the rent receipt Mark PW1/D2 relied upon by the defendant, the address is mentioned as 11/17, Rohtak Road, Nangloi. In the other documents Ex. DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4 the place of Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 19/23 business of M/s. Garg Trading Co. is mentioned as 1/17, Rohtak Road, Nangloi. No issue regarding identity of suit property was framed. No evidence has been led to clarify the address of the suit property. However, since the written statement is silent on this aspect and there is no specific denial regarding the address of the suit property, the address of the suit property shall be taken as mentioned in the plaint. 10.6 As already observed above, once the defendant admits himself to be the tenant in the suit property, onus is upon him to plead as to who is the landlord / landlady. The defendant failed to plead the name of the landlord / landlady in the written statement. The introduction of name of Ms. Ginni Devi as landlady at a later stage cannot be read in evidence since it is beyond pleadings. Accordingly, the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant regarding the suit property.
10.7 It was contended on behalf of the defendant that he is running the business of animal fodder at the suit property as such the suit property is being used for agricultural purpose and the notice for eviction is not in compliance of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, for the lease of property for agricultural purpose. This argument raised by the Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 20/23 defendant is not acceptable. Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act will not apply to any business or commercial activity being done in any commercial property. Further, the production of animal fodder is not an agricultural activity. As already held in issue no. 5, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by DRC Act. As such, the tenancy cannot be terminated by issuance of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 10.8 In view of the above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
11. ISSUE NO.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 13,332/- as prayed for ? OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
11.1 Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 13,332/ as arrears of rent for the month of April'2015 and 20 days of May'2015. As already held in issue no. 1, the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff. The onus is upon the tenant to show that he has paid the rent. Nonpayment of rent is a negative fact. Payment of rent is a positive fact. In short, any act of omission is a negative fact and any act of commission is a positive fact. No evidence can be led to prove a negative fact. Generally, only positive facts Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 21/23 can be proved. However, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the rate of rent is Rs. 4000/ per month. Although the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent for the relevant period but since the rate of rent has not been proved, the recovery cannot be allowed.
11.2 In view of the above, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
12. ISSUE NO.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits / damages @ Rs. 500/- per day as prayed in para-c of prayer clause ? OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
12.1 As already held in issue no. 5 the suit is barred under Section DRC Act, the tenancy could not have been terminated by a notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act. In view of this the possession of the defendant does not become unauthorized. As a result, the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of mesne profits.
12.2 In view of the above, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Judgment CS. No. 10963/16 Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 22/23 13. ISSUE NO.7: Relief. 13.1 In view of the findings of this court on issue no. 5, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. 14. No order as to cost. 15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by
RAJINDER RAJINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.07.13
15:57:48 +0530
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER SINGH)
COURT ON 11.07.2018 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI
Judgment CS. No. 10963/16
Ram Babu Gupta Vs. M/s. Garg Trading Company Page..... 23/23