Delhi District Court
Ram Daresh Yadav vs Anshul Omar Ors on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER,
DISTRICT JUDGE02, EAS DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI.
CS No. 370/2020
CNR No. DLET010024502020
In the matter of:
1. Sh. Ram Daresh Yadav,
S/o Late Sita Ram Rai,
2. Smt. Jagdamba Devi,
W/o Sh. Ram Daresh Yadav,
Both are R/o House R.C. No. 431,
Pragati Vihar, Khoda Colony,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
......plaintiffs.
Versus
1. Sh. Anshul Omar
C/o Books & Beanss Cafe/Playing cup cafe
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Omar
R/o F1005, Rishabh Cloud9,
Ahinsa Khand2, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh201014
Also at:
G3, G4 and G5, Ground Floor, Pankaj Tower III, Plot No. 6,
Local Shopping complex,
Mayur Vihar Phase 1 (17 Societies),
Delhi110091
2. Sh. Prakash Chand
C/o Bookss & Beanss Cafe/Playing cup cafe
R/o A1404, Trident Society,
Noida Extension,
CS No. 370/2020
Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 1 of 25
Uttar Pradesh
Also at:
G3, G4 and G5, Ground Floor,
Pankaj Tower III, Plot No. 6,
Local Shopping Complex,
Mayur Vihar Phase 1 (17 Societies)
Delhi110091
Also at:
R/o Ground Floor, Plot No. 969, Shakti Khand,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh201014.
3. Rohit Bhati
S/o Radhey Shyam
R/o 263, Patpar Ganj,
Mayur Vihar Phase1,
Delhi110091
.........Defendants.
Date of Institution : 22.06.2020
Date of Reserving for Order : 27.01.2026
Date of Order : 27.01.2026
JUDGEMENT
1. Initially, the plaintiffs had sought recovery of possession, mesne profit, damages and pending electricity bills. During the pendency of the instant lis, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs, which was allowed and defendants were directed to handover the possession of the suit property. Thus, the limited aspect of recovery of mesne profits, damages and electricity bills needs determination.
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 2 of 25PLAINT:
2. Briefly stated facts as disclosed in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the owner/landlord of the property bearing No. G4, measuring 218.62 sq. ft., situated at Ground Floor, Pankaj Tower III, Plot No.6, Local Shopping Complex, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI (17 Soceities), Delhi110091 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) and the defendants no. 1 and 2 were inducted as tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.22,500/ excluding electricity and other charges vide rent agreement dated May 8, 2017 which was duly registered for a period of three years i.e. commencing from May 9, 2017 to 31st of May 2020 with the stipulation of increase in rent by 5% every year over and above the last monthly rent payable. Though the tenancy was subsisting, the plaintiffs had the requirement of the suit property for setting up a business. Defendants no. 1 and 2 agreed to vacate the suit property on or before 01.11.2019, however, they did not handover the possession nor paid the electricity bills and for this reason the electricity meter No. 35170721 was disconnected by the electricity department in March, 2019 with an outstanding balance of Rs.21,526/, and another meter bearing CA Number 151936676 has an outstanding amount of Rs.54,790/ w.e.f. August 2019. The plaintiffs have further alleged that they could not start their above proposed ventures in time as defendants failed to vacate the suit property hence, defendants are liable to compensate them @ Rs.50,000/ per month w.e.f. 01.11.2019 till the date of handing over the possession. Moreover mesne profit CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 3 of 25 @ Rs.80,000/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.2020 till the date of handing over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum have been claimed.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS:
3. The defendants no. 1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement wherein they have admitted the execution of lease deed dated, 08.05.2017, and they averred that the suit property was taken on rent for running a cafe shop in the name of "The Playing Cup Cafe", however, the defendants were not able to fetch good business and it remained an uneconomical project for them. As there was a locking period of 1 year and the defendants were not in a position to surrender the tenancy, at that time, one Shri Rohit Bhati i.e. the defendant no. 3 made a proposal to the defendants no. 1 and 2 that he could run the cafe. As the lease remained in the name of the defendants, the defendants were hesitant in inducting defendant no. 3 unilaterally, therefore, they contacted the plaintiffs to whom the entire facts were narrated. The plaintiffs did not raise any objection and allowed the tenancy to continue. It is averred that though the lease remained in the name of the defendants no. 1 and 2, with the consent of the plaintiffs, actually the tenancy was continued by defendant no.3 w.e.f. November 2018. The defendants no.1 & 2 claimed that the opening party with ritual of puja, which was organized by defendant no.3, was even attended by the plaintiffs. The CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 4 of 25 defendants no. 1 and 2 have categorically stated that they remained the tenants only on papers from November 2018 onwards and practically, with the consent of the plaintiffs, the cafe shop was being run by defendant no.3. They had no role in any manner in the functioning or management of the cafe which was being run by defendant no.3 at the suit property. They denied their liability to pay the damages and mesne profits.
4. In the written statement, the defendant no. 3 has taken preliminary objections, including suppression of material facts and the present being a commercial dispute. The defendant no. 3 has admitted that he is running a cafe at the suit property in the name and style of "Books & Beans Cafe", as its sole proprietor. It is averred that in the year 2018/2019, the defendant no. 1 had approached the defendant no. 3 and informed him that one of his properties was lying vacant and that the said property was in a suitable location to run cafe. He was also informed that the defendant no. 1 was the owner of the said property where he was running a coffee shop along with his partner i.e. defendant no. 2 and due to financial crisis, they had to let out the suit property. Thereafter, defendant no. 3 visited the suit property and took it on rent @ Rs.45,000/p.m., to be paid equally to defendants no. 1 and 2. The defendant no. 3 has claimed that he had paid the rent of the suit property from November, 2018 till the nationwide lockdown came into effect. It is also the case of defendant no. 3 that even the plaintiffs were aware about the arrangements CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 5 of 25 between the defendant no. 3 and the defendants no. 1 and 2 and that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with defendants no. 1 and 2. The defendant no. 3 claims that time and again, he had requested for the execution of lease deed, however, defendants no. 1 and 2 used to avoid it for one reason or the other. Dismissal of the present suit has been prayed for.
REPLICATION:
5. The plaintiffs, in their replication, have denied all the allegations/contents of the written statement filed by the defendants and reiterated the facts averred in the plaint.
ISSUES:
6. Vide order, dated 21.10.2020, Ld. Predecessor had passed a preliminary decree of possession in the instant suit, whereby defendant No.3 was directed to handover the possession of the suit property within 15 days to the plaintiffs/s or the authorized representative of the plaintiffs. Upon completion of pleadings, Ld. Predecessor framed issues in the matter, vide order dated 12.10.2022, which read as under:
1. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled for the decree of Rs.50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) as claimed in prayer clause (c) of the plaintiffs and also interest thereupon and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 6 of 252. To what amount of mesne profits, the plaintiffs is entitled to and if so, at what rate and for what period, and also interest thereupon and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
3. To what amount of recovery, the plaintiffs is entitled towards usage of electricity, in respect of the meter installed in the premises? OPP.
4. To what amount of damages, the plaintiffs is entitled, and if so, at what rate and for what period, and also interest thereupon and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
5. Whether the suit is undervalued for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction, and appropriate Court fees has been paid by the plaintiffs? OPP.
6. Whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the subject matter of the suit? OPP.
7. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
7. The plaintiff No.1 stepped into the witness box as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the documents, such as copy of lease deed as Ex.PW1/1; copy of legal notice with postal record as Ex.PW1/2 (colly.); site plan as Ex.PW1/3, besides the documents CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 7 of 25 marked as Mark A, Mark B and Mark C, which are copy of complaint filed by defendants No.1 and 2 against the defendant No.3, copy of complaint filed by plaintiffs against the defendants No.1 & 2 and copy of electricity bills respectively.
8. PW1, in his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the defendants No.1 & 2, deposed that the suit property in question is about 20km away from his residence. He further deposed that he had filed the ownership documents with the suit. He is the first owner of the suit property. He denied the suggestion that he had not filed any ownership documents regarding the suit property in the present suit. He also deposed that the suit property is situated in a commercial buidling. He had paid the commercial tax of the suit property, but he did not know if he had filed the commercial tax receipts of the suit property or not. The suit property was earlier let out to someone else before it was let out to the defendants No.1 and 2. He admitted that registered rent agreement was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 and 2 for three years. He had not taken any security money at the time of execution of the said agreement. He denied the suggestion that a security amount of Rs.67,500/ was accepted by him from the defendants No.1 and 2. He did not remember whether he had placed the delivery receipts of legal notice sent to the defendants No.1 and 2. He admitted that monthly rent amount was transferred in his bank account through cheques till December, 2019 by defendants No.1 and 2. He CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 8 of 25 denied the suggestion that the defendants No.1 and 2 had also given advance rent for three months at the time of execution of the rent agreement. He also admitted that he had filed the documents regarding the damages incurred by the defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit property. He also admitted that paras No.5 and 13 of his evidentiary affidavit have been mentioned in his plaint also. No crossexamination was done on behalf of the defendant No.3.
9. PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Head Constable, tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW2/A and relied upon the complaints Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/4, i.e., ICMS Report of complaint No. 81680502000489 as Ex.PW2/1, copy of complaint made to SHO, PS Pandav Nagar, dated 27.06.2020 as Ex.PW2/2 and copy of local register in respect of complaint No. 00081680502000456 as Ex.PW2/3. In his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the defendants No.1 & 2, he admitted that there is a complaint by the defendants No.1 and 2 against the defendant No.3 registered on 17.06.2020.
10. The official of BSES, namely, Sh. Daya Krishan was examined as PW3 and he tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW3/A. He proved the copy of bill of CA No. 151905801, dated 29.03.2019 of Rs.21,526/ as Ex.PW3/1. No cross examination of this witness was conducted on behalf of the defendants.
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 9 of 2511. The friend of the plaintiffs, Sh. Vishnu Agarwal was examined as PW4, who tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW4/A. He relied upon the documents, i.e., Ex.PW4/1 (colly.) which is the email, dated 30.01.2019 sent by him to the defendants and Ex.PW4/2 is the certificate under Section 63(4) (C) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the defendants.
12. Thereafter, the plaintiffs closed their evidence vide order dated 15.10.2024. Consequently, the matter was listed for defendants' evidence. However, Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 24.12.2024 observed that no witness was present and no evidentiary affidavit was filed on behalf of the defendants, therefore, the defendants were not interested in leading any DE in the matter, thus, the DE was closed.
Final Arguments:
13. Submissions advanced by Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs have been heard and the written arguments filed by them have been perused.
14. Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Mukund Yadav, Ld. Counsels for plaintiffs, argued that the lease was validly terminated by the plaintiffs vide legal notice dated 24.12.2019 as the premises was required by the plaintiffs bonafidely for personal use and as such CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 10 of 25 the defendants No.1 & 2 became the trespasser in the suit property and are liable to pay the mesne profits @ Rs.2,000/ per day in terms of clause 7.4.1 of the lease deed.
15. Ld. Counsels further submitted that the plaintiffs has also proved that the defendant No.3 was the trespasser in the property as the defendants No.1 and 2 had subletted the suit property to the defendant no.3 without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs, and as such the defendants are liable to pay damages @ Rs.50,000/ p.m., i.e., w.e.f. October, 2018 till 14.09.2021.
16. It was further argued that the plaintiffs have proved through examination of PW3 Sh. Daya Krishan from BSES that the defendants have not paid the electricity charges during their possession of the suit property.
17. None appeared on behalf of the defendants to address argument in the matter. Record has been perused.
18. Issuewise findings in the matter are as under: Issue No.1."Whether the plaintiffs is entitled for the decree of Rs.50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand) as claimed in prayer clause (c) of the plaintiffs and also interest thereupon and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP".
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 11 of 2519. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/ pm w.e.f. 01.11.2019 on the ground of financial losses suffered by them as they could not start their business on time. While the tenancy was subsisting, the plaintiffs aver that they had the requirement of the suit property to start a business, though, the defendants No.1 and 2 assurred to vacate the suit property by 01.11.2019, they failed to do so, consequently, the plaintiffs suffered financial loss.
20. The plaintiffs have nowhere disclosed as to what business, they were planning to start at the suit property. A vague averment has been made in the plaint that the suit property was required to start a business. There is no iota of evidence to show any expenses being incurred in drafting of business plan, obtaining of necessary permits or licences, purchase of necessary equipments or furniture etc, which would have enabled this Court to ascertain the quantum of loss suffered by the plaintiffs.
21. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove financial loss, the arbitrary and whimsical amount of Rs.50,000/ pm cannot be granted to the plaintiffs solely on the basis of ocular testimony. Hence, no damages can be awarded on account of nonstarting of alleged business venture.
Issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiffs.
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 12 of 25Issue No.2. "To what amount of mesne profits, the plaintiffs is entitled to and if so, at what rate and for what period, and also interest thereupon and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP".
Issue No.4 "To what amount of damages, the plaintiffs is entitled, and if so, at what rate and for what period, and also interest thereupon and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP".
22. Both these issues are taken up together as these are inter connected and can be disposed off by a common discussion. There is no gain saying that the relief of mesne profits or damages emanates from wrongful possession of a tenant. Section 2 (12) of CPC defines mesne profits as under: " mesne profits " of property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits, but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrongful possession.
23. The plaintiffs had inducted defendants No.1 & 2 as tenants by virtue of registered lease deed, dated 08.05.2017 Ex.PW1/1, whereas, the defendants no.1 & 2, in complete violation of clause 6.6 of Ex.PW1/1, had transferred the possession of the suit property to defendant No.3. The lease of defendants No. 1 & 2 stood terminated by service of legal notice and even by eflux of CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 13 of 25 time. Hence, they became tenants at sufferance, who are liable to pay mesne profits. The defendants No. 1 & 2, in order to escape their liability to pay the mesne profits, have set up the plea that they were not in actual possession of the suit property, since November 2018 and it is the defendant No.3, who remained in wrongful possession of the suit property, consequently, the liability be fastened upon him.
24. The pivital question which has arisen for consideration is 'who is liable to pay the mesne profits, whether it is defendants No.1 & 2 or defendant No.3 or all the defendants?
25. Mesne profits can be recovered from a person who is an unauthorized occupant of the suit property. In the instant case, the landlordtenant relationship existed between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2, and they were duty bound to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs, rather, they acted in breach of the terms of lease deed Ex.PW1/1 and parted with the possession to defendant No.3.
26. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 was not inducted in the suit property with the permission of the plaintiffs. Though defendants No.1 & 2 have averred, in their written statement, that the plaintiffs had allowed the tenancy to be continued by defendant CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 14 of 25 No.3, this plea is in complete contrast to the complaint Ex.PW2/2 made to SHO, PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi, by defendants No.1 & 2 wherein they have stated that defendant No.3 had asked them to run the business at the suit property on oral agreement without any information to the landlord.
27. The plaintiff No.1 has clearly stated that he never visited the suit property after letting out the same to the defendants No.1 and 2. It is beyond the realm of reality that landlords, who were vigilant enough to execute a registered rent agreement with their tenants, would agree to part with possession of their property situated in a wellknown locality of Mayur Vihar to a third party without any written agreement. The plaintiff No.1 has clearly denied the suggestion that the defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit property from the year, 2019. He further volunteered that the defendants No.1 and 2 were in possession of the suit property. Further, the plaintiff No.1/PW1 has clearly admitted that the monthly rent amount was transferred in his bank account through cheques till December, 2019 by the defendants No.1 and
2. This celarly establishes that the possession of the suit property was handed over by defendants No. 1 & 2 to defendant No.3 without the permission/disclosure of the same to the plaintiffs.
28. It is a classic case where the landlord had let out the property at monthly rent of Rs.22,500/ only and the same property was sublet by his tenants at an enhanced monthly rent, CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 15 of 25 which was just the double, i.e., Rs.45,000/pm. No prudent landlord would grant permission for such an arrangement where he is incurring annual loss of Rs. 2,70,000/. The defendants No.1 & 2, have made substantial profit from the suit property and now, they are denying their liability to pay the mesne profits by affixing it upon defendant No.3.
29. The actual liability for mesne profits rests exclusively upon defendants No.1 & 2, who were actual tenants and were duty bound to hand over the possession to their landlord/plaintiffs. The defendant No.3 was inducted by the defendants No.1 & 2 in the suit property in complete violation of the lease deed Ex.PW1/1. In case the liability is fastened upon the defendant No.3, the tenants/defendants No.1 & 2 would derive advantage of their own wrong doing. The plaintiffs have a right to claim mesne profits against their tenants and not against any third party who had entered into possession without their authorization. This Court is of the opinion that the actual tenants/defendants No.1 & 2 are liable to pay the mesne profits.
30. Now the aspect of determination of appropriate rate of mesne profits arises for consideration. The plaintiffs have claimed mesne profits @ Rs.80,000/ pm w.e.f. 01.01.2020 till the date of handing over the peaceful possession of the suit property along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 16 of 25
31. The plaintiff No.1/PW1 initially, in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, claimed damages @ Rs.80,000/ pm, however, subsequently in para No.10 of his affidavit, PW1 restricted his claim to Rs.2,000/ per day (approximately Rs. 60,000/ a month). Admittedly, PW1 did not place on record any document showing the prevalent market rent/usufruct being drived from the similar property in the same situation for grant of mesne profits.
32. Nonfiling of rent agreement of properties similarly situated as the suit property, would not, perse, disentitle the plaintiffs to damages/mesne profits. Though defendants No.1 & 2 have failed to lead any evidence regarding the prevailing market rent of the suit property, there is an admission of defendant No.3, on record, that he was paying rent to defendants No.1 & 2 @ Rs. 45,000/pm. The relevant extract of written statement of defendant No.3 is reproduced herein below: "L. That it is submitted after visiting the said property, defendant No.3 really liked the location and immediately agreed to take the said property on rent on a monthly rent of Rs.45,000/ divided in two parts to be paid to the defendants in the name of Playing Cup. It is pertinent to mention that all the arrears towards the monthly rent has been paid till the nationwide lockdown come into effect. That the bank statement of defendant No.3 clearly shows that defendant No.3 has been paying rent to the defendants No.1 and 2 from November, 2018. That the bank statement of defendant No.3 is filed with the present written statement along with the list of documents."
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 17 of 2533. The aforesaid specific averment of defendant No.3 of agreed rate of rent being Rs.45,000/pm, was detrimental to the case putforth by the defendants no.1 & 2, hence, they should have obtained the leave of the Court to file additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. Same was not done. As the plea of monthly rent being Rs.45,000/ has not been categorically denied by defendants No.1 & 2, it amounts to an admission and the same can be read against them. Admission is as such the best evidence against the person making it.
34. The rent of Rs.45,000/ is the actual and correct amount which the tenanted shop was fetching per month from the person who was in its actual possession. The said amount, therefore, constitutes a just, fair and reasonable measure of mesne profits in the present case, particularly, when there is an admission of defendants No.1 & 2 on record and there is no evidence to the contrary to show that the prevailing market rent was less than the said amount.
35. It is noteworthy that the plaintiffs have claimed the mesne profits/damages w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and there is no dispute that the defendants continued in unauthorized occupation of tenanted shop from the said date, despite termination of tenancy. The possession was received by the plaintiffs with the aid of court bailiff on 14.09.2021. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 18 of 25 recover damages/mense profits from defendants No.1 & 2 @ Rs.45,000/pm w.e.f. 01.01.2020 till 14.09.2021.
36. As regards interest payable on mesne profits, it is a settled law that interest forms an integral part of the mesne profits, therefore, once the Court awards mesne profits, the interest accruing thereon has to be allowed as a necessary corollary in the computation of the mesne profits. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement titled as J.K. Laxmi Cement Vs. Master Avishkar Prakash, 2024 DHC 9239.
37. In the present case, the plaintiffs have claimed pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a., however, in the opinion of the Court, the said rate of interest is exorbitant and without any basis. Considering the prevailing market rate, this Court is of the view that grant of simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of damages/mense profits is just and equitable.
38. The defendants No.1 & 2 are, therefore, held jointly and severally liable to pay damages/mesne profits @ Rs.45,000/ pm w.e.f. 01.01.2020 till 14.09.2021 along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. for the said period.
Issues No. 2 & 4, are accordingly, disposed off.
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 19 of 25Issue No.3. "To what amount of recovery, the plaintiffs is entitled towards usage of electricity, in respect of the meter installed in the premises? OPP".
39. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, in para No.5 of the plaint, have averred that the defendants did not pay the electricity bills in respect of the electricity meter No. 35170721, which had an outstanding amount of Rs.21,526/, whereas, another meter with CA No. 151936676, had an outstanding balance of Rs.50,433/ on 14.02.2020. The competent official of the BSES was examined as PW3, who proved the electricity bill of CA No. 151905801, dated 29.03.2019 of Rs.21,526/ Ex.PW3/1.
40. PW3 specifically deposed that the electricity meter was removed because of nonpayment of bill Ex.PW3/1. No cross examination of PW3 has been conducted. The testimony of PW3 regarding nonpayment of electricity dues to the tune of Rs.21,526/ has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are held entitled to recover the amount of Rs.21,526/ from defendants No.1 & 2.
Issue No.3 is, accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 20 of 25Issue No.5 "Whether the suit is undervalued for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction, and appropriate Court fees has been paid by the plaintiffs? OPP".
41. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The defendant No.3, in para No. R of preliminary objections of written statement, has alleged that the plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly as the value of suit property is more than Rs.50 lakhs and the plaintiffs have not paid adequate court fees. No report of any valuer has been filed nor any competent witness on valuation aspect has been examined by defendant No.3. After the decree of possession dated 21.10.2020 was passed against defendant No.3, he chose not to contest the present suit.
42. The doctrine of dominus litis entitles the plaintiffs to put a valuation to the reliefs claimed and to choose the forum for pursuit of his claim. This discretion is not absolute, but it cannot be interferred with unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious. In Veena Bahl v. Manmohan Bahl (2017) 238 DLT 281 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under: "18. It is well settled that the plaintiffs is dominus litis and in him vests the power to choose the court and determine the valuation of the suit for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction and that the defendant cannot insist that the suit be tried before a particular court. Nor can the courts compel the plaintiffs to go to another court or interfere with his valuation of the suit."
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 21 of 2543. It has further been explained in Subhashini Malik v. S.K. Gandhi, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5058 that the plaintiffs as the master of the proceedings, is entitled to choose not only the remedy but also the forum where he wishes to agitate the same. The relevant portion of the decision reads as under:
"46. The prime considerations on the basis of which the majority opinion rests its final conclusions stem from the doctrine of dominus litis; that is to say, the plaintiffs is the master of the proceedings and has been vested, by law, with the prerogative not only to put a valuation to the reliefs claimed by him but also to choose the remedy and the forum for its pursuit. Reference has been made in this regard to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887." XXX
74. It is trite that the plaintiffs, as the master of the proceedings, is entitled to choose not only the remedy but also the forum where he wishes to agitate the same, should there be more than one available in law."
44. Thus, it is apparent that the valuation primarily lies within the plaintiffs' discretion unless shown to be malafide. The plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for recovery of possession against the defendants No. 1 & 2, who are their tenants by virtue of registered lease deed, dated 08.05.2017 Ex.PW1/1. The tenants/defendants No.1 & 2 malafidely parted with the possession of the suit property to defendant No.3. In the instant case, landlords are seeking recovery of possession from their tenants and would be required to value a suit at the annual rate of CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 22 of 25 rent. The landlord cannot be compelled to value the suit at market value and pay enhanced court fees thereon due to fault of tenants, who without his permission and in violation of terms of lease deed Ex.PW1/1, transferred the possession to someone else.
45. Section 7 (xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides that in a suit between landlord and tenant for recovery of immovable property from a tenant, the suit has to be valued according to the amount of rent of an immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint.
46. The foundation of the present suit is the registered lease deed Ex.PW1/1 and the subsequent breach of its terms, thus, the suit had to be valued on the annual rent payable. The plaintiffs, in para No.10 of the plaint, have rightly valued the suit for the relief of possession at the annual rent, i.e., Rs.22,500 X 12 = Rs.2,70,000/. The plaintiffs were not required to value the suit at market value of the suit property, but they had to value it in terms of Section 7 (xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Same has been done. This Court is of the opinion that the instant suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction.
The Issue No.5 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 23 of 25Issue No.6 "Whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the subject matter of the suit? OPP".
47. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. Section 16 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 lays down a well established principle that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res or property is situated. A Court within whose territorial jurisdiction, the property is not situated has no power to deal with or decide the rights or interest in such property.
48. In the instant case, the suit property is situated in the area of Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of East District. Consequently, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
Issue No.6 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
RELIEF:
49. In view of the foregoing discussions, the plaintiffs are held entitled to recover damages/mesne profits @ Rs.45,000/pm w.e.f. 01.01.2020 till 14.09.2021 along with interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount for the aforesaid period to be paid jointly or severally by the defendants No.1 & 2. Moreover, the defendants CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 24 of 25 No.1 & 2 shall also pay outstanding amount of electricity bill of Rs.21,526/ to the plaintiffs. The suit of the plaintiffs is, accordingly, decreed. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiffs.
50. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Annouced in the Open Court, (Shuchi Laler) On this 27.01.2026. District Judge02, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 370/2020 Ram Daresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. Ashul Omar etc. Page 25 of 25