Delhi District Court
Ashwini Kumar Sharma vs Sanjeev Narula on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE -02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ No. 2224/2023
In the matter of :-
SH. ASHWINI KUMAR SHARMA
S/o Late Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma,
R/o H.No. 171, Gagan Vihar,
Vikas Marg, Delhi-110051.
.... Plaintiff
VERSUS
SH. SANJEEV NARULA
S/o Sh. Ajit Kumar Narula,
Proprietor of: M/s Liberty News Pictures,
Address: 4965/26, Netaji Subhash Marg,
Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002.
Also at:
D-205, Ramprastha,
P.O. Chander Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P. 201011.
....Defendant
Date of Institution: 18.11.2023
Date of reserving the judgment: 10.07.2025
Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025
Final Judgment : Suit Decreed.
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
Digitally
signed by
AAKASH
CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 1 of 13 AAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30
15:38:02
+0530
(Suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit)
PLAINTIFF'S VERSION
1.The brief facts of the case as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is co-owner/landlord of the property bearing No. 4965/26, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. That earlier grandfather of the plaintiff, namely Sh. Hari Har Swarup Sharma was owner of the suit property by virtue of lease deed dated 31.10.1938 executed by Delhi Improvement Trust. That Sh. Hari Har Swarup Sharma, grandfather of the plaintiff died on 25.05.1978 and after his death, a family partition dated 21.11.1981 took place whereby, Smt. Sheela Rani, grandmother became owner and after death of Smt. Sheela Rani, father of the plaintiff namely Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma became the owner of the suit property.
1.1 It is further submitted that Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma had died on 28.04.2021 and after his death, plaintiff became co-owner of the suit property being his son Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma died intestate. That the defendant is in possession of one shop (garage), situated on Ground Floor of the above mentioned property. That earlier, father of the defendant, namely Sh. Ajit Kumar Narula was inducted as a tenant by virtue of Rent Deed dated 16.06.1986. That the defendant has lastly paid the rent to the plaintiff till December 2020 and now the defendant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2021. That Sh. Ajit Kumar Narula died and after his death, his son i.e. defendant was accepted as a tenant being the legal heir. That the Digitally signed by CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 2 of 13 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:06 +0530 defendant is liable to pay Rs.1,75,000/- as arrears of rent for the period from 01.01.2021 to 30.11.2023. The details of arrears of rent are mentioned as under:-
S. No. Period Amount (Rs.)
1. Rent for the period Rs. 1,75,000/-
from 01.01.2021 to
30.11.2023 @
Rs.5,000/- per month
Total Rs. 1,75,000/-
That the defendant is also liable to pay interest @18% per annum on total arrears of rent. That the defendant has malafide intention and defendant is habitual defaulter regarding payment of rent in as much as defendant has ulterior motive, hence, plaintiff does not want to keep the defendant anymore as a tenant, hence, the contractual tenancy of the defendant was terminated by virtue of legal notice dated 17.09.2023 and now, the defendant is unauthorized occupant/trespasser.
1.2 It is further submitted that the plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 17.09.2023 whereby the tenancy of the defendant was terminated and the said legal notice has been duly served upon the defendant by post and the postal authority has duly confirmed the delivery of the said notice. That after termination of the tenancy, defendant is an unauthorized occupant and liable to pay the market rate. That the demise premises can bring the rent of Rs.30,000/- per month, hence the defendant is liable to pay Rs.30,000/- as mesne profit to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.12.2023. That cause of action arises in Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 3 of 13 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:11 +0530 favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, it arose when the rent became due since January 2021, it again arose when the request was made to the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, however, defendant failed to do, it again arose when the legal notice dated 17.09.2023 was served upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession, however, defendant failed to do so, the cause of action is still subsisting in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because the defendant is still in possession as well as in arrears of rent. That the value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction for the relief of possession is fixed at Rs.60,000/- on which requisite court fees of Rs.2,929.60/- are paid, the value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction for recovery of arrears of rent for Rs.1,75,000/- for the period from 01.01.2021 to 30.11.2023 @ Rs.5,000/- on which the requisite court fees of Rs.4,052/- are paid, the plaintiff has paid total court fees of Rs.6,981/-. That the property in question is situated at Central District, Tis Hazari Courts and the cause of action has arisen in Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, hence the Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. That the suit is non-commercial because the pecuniary value of the suit is less than Rs.3,00,000/-.
1.3 Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff with the following prayers :-
a) to pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of one shop situated in the property bearing Digitally signed by AAKASH CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 4 of 13 AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:15 +0530 no. 4965/26, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 as shown in red colour in the site plan;
b) to pass a decree of arrears of rent Rs. 1,75,000/- alongwith interest @18% in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
c) to pass a decree of Rs. 30,000/- per month as mesne profits w.e.f. 01.12.2023 till handing over the possession of the premises in question in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
d) Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S VERSION
2. Summons of the suit for settlement of issued were issued to the defendant and received back served upon the defendant on 04.03.2024 by way of affixation as observed in the order dated 10.04.2024. Thereafter, written statement alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, list of documents, photocopies of certain documents and vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the defendant.
3. It is averred in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Hon'ble Court and as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. That the father of the plaintiff had been taking the rent on yearly basis and the defendant had sent Digitally signed by CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 5 of 13 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:20 +0530 the rent for the period 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021 through post vide letter dated 03.01.2022 but the same was returned with remark "praptkarta ki mrityu ho gayi hai" dated 04.01.2022. That after the demise of the father of the plaintiff, the defendant was never intimated about his successor by any family member of the father of the plaintiff. That the defendant have been regularly paying the rent as had been demanded by the father of the plaintiff. That after the demise of the father of the plaintiff, the defendant had chatting on Whatsapp with the plaintiff and the defendant had asked the plaintiff to give the details of the legal heirs of the father of the plaintiff so that the defendant can pay the rent to the right persons(s). That the defendant never had any intentions to withhold the rental amount and was always willing to pay the same to the legal heirs of Late Sh. Rajender Kumar Sharma.
3.1 That the plaintiff has admitted that he is the co-owner of the suit property and not the absolute owner of the suit property and Sh.
Rajender Kumar Sharma died intestate and that was the bonafide doubt in the mind of the defendant to whom the defendant should pay the rent. It is denied that the defendant has lastly paid the rent to the plaintiff till December 2020 as alleged. That the defendant never paid any rent to the plaintiff. It is vehemently denied that the defendant is also liable to pay interest @18% per annum on total arrears of rent as alleged. It is vehemently denied that the defendant has malafide intention and defendant is habitual defaulter regarding payment of rent inasmuch as defendant has ulterior motive as alleged. It is denied that the contractual tenancy of the AAKASH CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 6 of 13 SHARMA Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.07.30 15:38:26 +0530 defendant was terminated by virtue of legal notice dated 17.09.2023 as alleged. It is further denied that the defendant is unauthorized occupant/ trespasser as alleged. That the plaintiff with malafide intentions wants to enhance the rent multifold in illegal manner and against the customs of the market. It is the settled rule in the market that the rent can be enhanced at the rate of 10% after three years. It is denied that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated as alleged. It is vehemently denied that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated and the defendant is an unauthorized occupant and liable to pay the market rate as alleged. It is further denied that the demise premise can bring the rent of Rs.30,000/- per month as alleged. It is vehemently denied that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.30,000/- as mesne profit to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.12.2023 as alleged. It is denied that the cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as alleged. It is further denied that it arose when the rent became due since January 2021 as alleged. It is further denied that it again arose when the request was made to the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. It is further denied that it again arose when the legal notice dated 17.09.2023 was served upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession. It is further denied that the cause of action is still subsisting in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as alleged. That the plaintiff has not fixed the ad valorem Court fees on the plaint. That the prayer clause of the plaintiff is false and without any substance and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief(s) as prayed for. That the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
AAKASH SHARMA CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 7 of 13 Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA Date: 2025.07.30 15:38:31 +0530
4. In the replication, the plaintiff has denied all the averments made in the written statement and reiterated those made in the plaint.
5. Vide order dated 07.12.2024, an application under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the plaintiff was disposed off as allowed in view of the fact that the present tenancy was not a protected tenancy and the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of tenancy by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was also proved, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stood terminated. It was observed by this Court that a decree of possession can be passed in the present matter and now the only controversy left to be decided between the parties pertained to arrears of rent, mesne profits and costs of suit. A preliminary decree was passed on 07.12.2024 and the present suit was decreed qua possession of the suit property i.e. one shop situated in the property bearing no. 4965/26, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 as shown in red colour in the site plan and the defendant was directed to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 30 days of the said order.
6. It was observed in the order dated 28.03.2025 that the plaintiff had obtained possession of the suit premises on 03.03.2025 in execution petition no. 330/2025 titled Sh. Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sh. Sanjeev Narula in terms of the preliminary decree dated 07.12.2024.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 8 of 13 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:34 +0530 framed vide order dated 20.01.2025: -
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent i.e. sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- for period 01.01.2021 upto 30.11.2023 @ Rs. 5,000/- per month alongwith interest @18 % per annum from filing of present suit till the decree? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of mesne profits @ Rs. 30,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2023 till handing over possession of the suit premises? OPP.
3. Cost/Relief.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 28.03.2025, the defendant was proceeded exparte as none appeared on behalf of the defendant despite repeated calls on 28.03.2025.
9. In its ex-parte plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He mainly relied upon the following documents :-
i) Ex.PW1/1 is copy of rent deed dated 16.06.1986.
ii) Ex.PW1/2 is copy of counterfoils dated 30.10.2018.
iii) Ex.PW1/3 is site plan.
iv) Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) is copy of legal notice dated
17.09.2023.
v) Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) is copy of Registered speed post
receipt.
Digitally
signed by
AAKASH
AAKASH SHARMA
CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 9 of 13 SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30
15:38:38
+0530
vi) Ex.PW1/6 is tracking report.
vii) Ex.PW1/7 is tracking report.
viii) Ex.PW1/8 is certified copy of Lease Deed dated 14.09.2023.
ix) Mark A is copy of death certificate of Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, father of the plaintiff.
Defendant was ex-parte vide order 28.03.2025.
9.1 In its ex-parte plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff got examined Sh. Kishan Kumar, Data Entry Operator, Office of the Sub Registrar-III, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi as PW-2, who deposed that he was the summoned witness from the office of Sub Registrar-III, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. He had been authorized to produce the record before the Court. The authorization letter was Ex.PW2/1. He had brought the summoned record i.e. lease deed dated 14.09.2023 executed between Baseer Mohsin and Vidya Sarda duly registered as registration no.8520, in book no. 1, volume no.20132, on pages no. 170 to 180 registered on 15.09.2023. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW2/2 (OSR).
Defendant was already ex-parte vide order dated 28.03.2025.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and carefully perused the record.
11. Although the written statement has been filed by the defendant but he has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.03.2025. The Digitally signed by CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 10 of 13 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:42 +0530 plaintiff has got proved in evidence the Lease Deed dated 14.09.2023 which is Ex.PW2/2 (OSR) executed between Mr. Baseer Mohsin S/o Mr. Mohammad Mohsin and Mrs. Vidya Sarda W/o Mr. Deepak Kumar Sarda, Rent Deed dated 16.06.1986 executed between Smt. Sheela Rani W/o Late Sh. Harihar Swarup Sharma and Sh. Ajit Kumar Narula S/o Sh. N.L. Narula to show that the suit property is a leased premises which was rented out to the father of the defendant vide Rent Deed i.e. Ex.PW1/1. The plaintiff has further relied upon the Death Certificate of his father late Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma which is Mark A.
12. Plaintiff also got duly proved counter foil dated 30.10.2018 whereby the rent was revised to Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. January 2018 onwards for the period January 2018 to June 2018 and acknowledgment was given qua receipt of cheque in the sum of Rs.30,000/- drawn on Yes bank vide Ex.PW1/2. Plaintiff also duly proved legal notice dated 17.09.2023 i.e. Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) qua which tenancy was terminated between the parties in terms of Section 106 Transfer of Property Act. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the averments made by the plaintiff. Moreover, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 stood unrebutted/unchallenged as they were not cross-examined by the defendant despite having opportunity regarding the same. In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, documents exhibited/tendered in evidence by them and on the basis of material on record, it may be said that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant regarding the reliefs of arrears of rent and mesne profits.
Digitally CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 11 of 13 signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:46 +0530
13. This finding is fortified by the fact of categorical admissions made by the defendant since the defendant was examined under Order 10 C.P.C. on 08.08.2024 wherein the defendant admitted that the father of the plaintiff namely Late Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma was the landlord of the suit property and the defendant does not deny the landlord-tenant relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. The defendant also admitted that he lastly paid the rent to the father of the plaintiff till December, 2020. Defendant also admitted having received the legal notice dated 17.09.2023. Thus, the defendant is in default of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2021 onwards upto 30.11.2023 @Rs. 5,000/- per month. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover the mesne profits w.e.f. 01.12.2023 till 03.03.2025 i.e. the date when plaintiff obtained possession of the suit premises from the defendant in terms of the preliminary decree dated 07.12.2024. However, the mesne profits @Rs.30,000/- per month claimed by the plaintiff are highly excessive. The interest of justice shall be satisfied if the plaintiff is granted mesne profits at an enhanced rate of Rs.6,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2023 till 03.03.2025 i.e. date when plaintiff obtained possession of the suit premises.
14. Relief.
In view of the discussion above, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs :-
Digitally signed by CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 12 of 13 AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:49 +0530
a) The preliminary decree of possession dated 07.12.2024 qua suit property in respect of one shop situated in the property bearing no.
4965/26, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 as shown in red colour in the site plan passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant is hereby made whole and absolute.
b) A decree of arrears of rent Rs. 1,75,000/- for the period 01.01.2021 upto 30.11.2023 @Rs.5,000/- per month alongwith interest @6% per annum beginning from 01.12.2023 till realization is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
c) A decree of Rs. 6,000/- per month as mesne profits w.e.f. 01.12.2023 till 03.03.2025 with interest @6% per annum beginning from 04.03.2025 till realization is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
d) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
The preliminary decree dated 07.12.2024 be incorporated in the final decree.
Digitally Final decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. signed by AAKASH File be consigned to Record Room as per rules. AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.30 15:38:55 Announced in the open (Aakash Sharma) +0530 court today on 31.07.2025 Civil Judge -02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.CS No. 2224/2023 Ashwini Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjeev Narula Page 13 of 13