Delhi District Court
All Residents Of 2 vs Smt. Pushpa Goel on 6 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS.CHHAVI KAPOOR
CIVIL JUDGE -05: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No.770/10
Unique ID No. 02401C5073422004
Smt. Nirmal Tandon
(since deceased)
through her legal heirs
(a) Shri Gopesh Chandra Tandon
S/o Late Shri S.S. Tandon
(b) MS. Preeti Kapoor
W/o Shri Akhilesh Kapoor
(c) Shri Sanjay Tandon
S/o Shri Gopesh Chandra Tandon
(d) Shri Pankaj Tandon
S/o Shri Gopesh Chandra Tandon
All residents of 2, Kalkaji Road,
Bagh Shambhu Dayal,
Okhla, New Delhi-110020
..............Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Pushpa Goel,
(since deceased)
through her legal heirs
(a) Smt. Meenal Aggarwal
(b) Smt. Rachna Gupta
(c) Smt. Vidhu Jain
(d) Smt. Nidhi Aggarwal
All daughters of Late Shri Narender Kumar Goel,
All C/o 215, Sukhdev Vihar, Mathura Road,
New Delhi - 110025. ..........Defendant
Date of Filing : 26.03.2004
Date on which order has been reserved : 31.01.2012
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 06.02.2012
Page No.1 of 13
JUDGMENT
1 Plaintiff has filed the present suit for Recovery of Possession, Recovery of arrears of Rent and Damages/Mesne Profits and for grant of Permanent Injunction against the Defendant. Facts of the suit are as under:-
2 As per averments made in the plaint, Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of an open plot measuring 235 sq.yards of land , situated adjacent to the Old Well inside Bagh Shambhu Dayal, Okhla,New Delhi in Khasra No.576, Mouza Bhahapur,Tehsil Mehrauli , New Delhi (hereinafter referred as to the suit plot). The suit plot was let out by the father of the Plaintiff (Sh.Kripa Shankar Seth) to the Husband of the Defendant namely Sh. Narender Kumar Goel, who was the sole proprietor of firm M/s Universal Industries. The tenancy was created by way of a rent deed on 14.10.1981 and was to operate w.e.f 01.10.1981. The father of the Plaintiff had expired on 04.04.1987 but had executed a registered Will dated 20.01.1982 in favour of his daughter during his life time . By way of the Will dated 20.01.1982, Sh. Kripa Shankar Seth had bequeathed the suit plot and few other plots, owned by him, in favour of his daughter i.e the Plaintiff , who later on became the owner of the suit plot by virtue thereof.
3 Plaintiff had duly informed the tenant Sh. Narender Kumar Goel about the contents of the Will dated 20.01.1982 by virtue of which she had become the owner of the suit plot. It is claimed that the tenant had attorned to the title and the capacity of the Plaintiff of being the owner and landlord of the suit plot after the death of Sh. Kripa Shankar and had started paying rent to her. As per the plaint, an amount of Rs.750/- p.m was the last paid rent (excluding house tax, water and electricity charges) and had been paid till 31.08.2002. Sh. Narender Kumar Goel had thereafter, expired on 05.12.2002 and after his demise, his widow i.e the Defendant had become the tenant of the suit plot. It is claimed that even she had attorned to the status and the title of the Plaintiff as the owner and landlord of the suit plot. After the death of Sh. Narender Kumar Goel, Plaintiff had approached the Defendant a number of times with a request to make payment of the arrears of rent w.e.f 1.09.2002 @ Rs.750/- pm. However, the Defendant Page No.2 of 13 kept on avoiding the issue on one pretext or the other. Constrained by this, Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 13.11.2003 vide which she terminated the tenancy of the Defendant and called upon her to make payment of arrears of rent till the date of termination of the tenancy. By virtue of the said notice, Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit plot back to her, but in vain. To the Plaintiff's utter surprise, a reply dated 09.01.20034 was received by her from the Defendant. In the said reply, Defendant had stated that she was a tenant under provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore, it was claimed that her tenancy could not be terminated by way of notice dated 13.11.2003 u/S 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has been harassing her and has deposited rent in the court of Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Addl. Rent Controller Delhi. Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant is threatening to transfer, alienate and part with possession of the suit plot in order to prejudice the rights of the Plaintiff. Defendant has refused to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit plot back to the Plaintiff and therefore, she has filed the present suit , thereby praying for the following reliefs;-
(a) a Decree for Possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of suit plot ;
(b) a Decree for a sum of Rs.11,250/- in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant as arrears of rent w.e.f 01.09.2002 till 30.11.2003 along with pendentalite and future interest @18% p.a.;
(c)Decree for a sum of Rs.30,000/- for illegal and unauthorized use of the suit plot w.e.f 01.12.2003 till 29.02.2004 along with pendentalite and future interest @18% p.a.;
(d)further pendentalite and future damages @ Rs.10,000/- pm from the date of filing of the suit till date of vacation of the suit plot;
(e) A Decree for Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendant from transferring , alienating, disposing off or creating third party interest in the suit plot.
4 Suit of the Plaintiff has been contested to by the Defendant who has filed a Page No.3 of 13 written statement vide which averments made in the plaint have been vehemently denied and controverted with. A preliminary objection has been taken whereby it has been claimed that the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In this regard, the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted by the Defendant but it is stated that since the admitted rate of rent of the tenanted premises (suit plot) was fixed at Rs.750/- pm, only provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act would apply to the facts of the case. Thus, it was claimed that the suit for Possession and Recovery of Rent/Damages , filed in a civil court, was not maintainable. Suit of the Plaintiff was also claimed to be not maintainable on the ground of non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties namely the four daughters of Sh. Narender Kumar Goel who were claimed to have inherited the tenancy of the suit plot along with the Defendant.
5 On merits, Defendant claimed that the tenanted premises (suit plot) was let out as a constructed tin shed on cemented brick walls with roof of tin sheets. It was admitted that the tenanted premises was let out by Sh. Kripa Shankar seth to the Husband of the Defendant but it was vehemently denied that any rent deed dated 14.10.1981 was executed between them . It was claimed that three interconnected premises of Sh. Kripa Shankar Seth had infact been rented out to Sh.Narender Kumar Goel under the name and style of M/s Universal Industries but only one common tenancy, covering the three premises was agreed upon between them. On the basis of these facts , Defendant stated that since the suit plot was built up and not an open plot, the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was also submitted that it was the Plaintiff who had refused to accept rent w.e.f 1.09.2002 and, therefore, the Defendant had deposited the same u/S 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Service of the notice dated 13.11.2003 was admitted and it was stated that the contents of the notice were duly replied to by the Defendant vide her reply dated 09.01.2004.Defendant denied that her conduct was designed to harass the Plaintiff . She further denied that she was intending to dispose off or part with possession of the suit plot in favour of a third party. She claimed that the story of the Plaintiff was false and based upon concocted facts. She further Page No.4 of 13 claimed that no cause of action had arisen in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and accordingly, prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.
6 No Replication to the Written Statement was filed.
7 On the basis of pleadings on record, following Issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 26.08.2004 for determination in the suit:-
Issue No. (i) :- Whether Plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed ? OPP Issue No. (ii) :-Whether Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent, if so, for what period and at what rate ? OPP Issue No. (iii) :- Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of mesne profits/damages as prayed, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP Issue No. (iv) :- Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed ? OPP Issue No. (v) :- Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is hit by the provision of Section 50 of DRC Act ? OPD Issue No. (vi) :- Whether Plaintiff is guilty of concealment of material facts ? OPD Issue No. (vii) :- Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary and property party ? OPD Issue No. (viii) :- Whether present suit as filed by the Plaintiff is without any cause of action ? OPD Issue No. (ix) :- Whether Plaintiff has not valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD Issue No. (x) :- Whether the suit of the Plaintiff has not been filed by as duly authorised and competent persons ? OPD Issue No. (xi) :- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act ? OPD Issue No. (xii) :- Relief.
8 Plaintiff examined Sh. Gopesh Chandra Tandon (her Husband) as PW-1, Page No.5 of 13 Sh. K.R.Raja as PW-2, Sh.Suresh Kumar (Draftsman) as PW-3 and Sh. Babu Lal (official from the office of Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road) as PW -4 in support of her case. PW -1 relied upon the following documents; original General Power of Attorney dated 06.03.2004; Ex.PW 1/1, site plan of the suit ;Ex. PW 1/ 2, Original Rent Deed dated 14.10.1981 ,a/w site plan; Ex. PW 1/3, Death certificate of Sh. Kripa Shankar Seth; Ex. PW 1/ 4, certified copy of Will dated 20.01.1982; Ex. PW 1/5, office copy of notice dated 13.11.2003; Ex. PW 1/6, original postal receipts; Ex. PW 1/8 and Ex. PW 1/9, original UPC receipt ; Ex. PW 1/10, original AD card received back from the address of the Defendant at Sukhdev Vihar; Ex. PW 1/11, original returned envelope received back undelivered at the address of M/s Universal Industries; Ex. PW 1/12, office copy of letter sent by the counsel for the Plaintiff to the Post Master, Post office Supreme Court ; Ex.PW 1/13, Reply to this notice; Ex. PW 1/14, reply of the Defendant dated 09.01.2004; Ex.PW 1/15, Copy of petition filed by the Defendant u/S 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act; Ex.PW 1/16 and copy of objections filed by the Plaintiff u/s 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act; Ex. PW 1/17. PW-2 relied upon the Rent Deed dated 14.10.1981. PW -4 relied upon the Will dated 20.01.1982.
9 Defendant has examined one Sh. Sanjay Jain as DW-1 in support of her case. DW-1 has relied upon the following documents ; - Special Power of Attorney dated 03.08.2010; Ex. DW1/1, Reply to the notice of the Plaintiff ; Ex.PW 1/15.
10 I have heard Ld. Counsel for both parties at considerable length and have given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas put forth by them. My Issuewise findings are as under:-
Issue No.(x)
11 Suit of the Plaintiff was objected to on the ground that it had not been filed by a duly authorized and competent person. The suit had been filed by Smt. Nirmala Tandon but the plaint had been signed and verified by her Husband i.e Sh. Gopesh Chandra Tandon , who claimed to be the General Power of Attorney of the Plaintiff vide the Attorney dated 06.03.2004. The original of the Page No.6 of 13 General Power of Attorney dated 06.03.2004 was filed on record and proved by PW-1 (Sh.Gopesh Chandra Tandon) as Ex. PW 1/1. The attorney authorized PW-1 to sign and institute all kinds of civil suits or criminal proceedings, complaints etc. in connection with the suit plot in any competent court of law. The attorney further authorized PW-1 to proceed and conduct all proceedings filed in the name of the Plaintiff in connection with the suit plot. It also generally authorized the attorney to do all acts or things deemed necessary in respect of the suit plot. This General Power of Attorney was irrevocable. In the judgment of Man Kaur (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs Hartar Singh Sangha , reported as VII (2010) SLT 144, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney , who may happen to be a close family member , it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney with respect to matters in the knowledge of the party. PW -1, who has signed and verified the plaint is the husband of the Plaintiff and has been pursuing the matters relating to the suit plot since a long time. He has deposed that he is aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no reason to disbelieve that he is not competent to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the Plaintiff. Even otherwise, the Defendant has not produced any evidence to show that the suit of the Plaintiff has not been filed by a duly authorized person. Therefore, the Issue is decided against the Defendant.
Issue Nos. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (viii) can be disposed off by way of a common finding. Therefore, the Issues are being taken up together. 12 Onus to prove that Plaintiff was entitled for Recovery of Possession, Recovery of arrears of Rent and Damages/Mesne Profits and for the Decree of Permanent Injunction was placed upon her shoulders. Plaintiff claimed that she was the owner of the suit plot by virtue of a registered Will of her father Sh. Kripa Shankar Seth dated 20.01.1982. The certified copy of the Will dated 20.01.1982 was filed on record and marked as Ex. PW 1/5. By way of the said Will, the executant i.e Sh.Kirpa Shankar Seth had bequeathed the suit plot and some other properties in favour of his daughter i.e the Plaintiff. Even though, the Defendant had not denied that Plaintiff was the landlord of the suit plot, she had Page No.7 of 13 challenged the claim of ownership of the Plaintiff by stating that the copy of the will had not been supplied to her till today and therefore, she was not in a position to affirm the claim of ownership of the Plaintiff. It is a settled principle of law that a tenant can not be allowed to question the title of the landlord, after having reaped the benefits arising out of the tenancy. Therefore, the objection of the Defendant is not tenable. Even otherwise, the ownership of the Plaintiff has been proved by way of Will of Sh. Kirpa Shankar Seth dated 20.01.1982, which was proved by PW-1 & PW-4 (witness from the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi).
13 The Defendant had not denied that Plaintiff was her landlord in respect of the suit plot. However, it was her plea that after the demise of her husband, the tenancy , which had earlier been executed between Sh. Kripa Shankar Seth and her husband had devolved upon her daughters also, who had not been impleaded as party to the suit. In this regard, reference may be made to a Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Inderpal Khanna Vs Commandar Bhupinder singh Rethi (Retd), reported as 2008 VIII AD (Delhi)328, wherein it was held that a tenancy would always devolve upon the legal heirs of a tenant as a joint tenancy. It was further held that in case of a joint tenancy, notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient to terminate the tenancy and the suit could not be held bad for non joinder of other joint tenants or all legal heirs of deceased tenant. It is therefore, clear that after the demise of Sh. Narender Kumar Goel ,his LRs i.e. the Defendant and his surviving four daughters had become joint tenants and,therefore, impleadment of one of them was sufficient.
14 Moving further, another ground raised in opposition to the suit of the Plaintiff was that the suit plot was let out as a built up structure on admitted rate of rent of Rs.750/- pm and thus, it was claimed that the suit was hit by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Plaintiff denied that the suit plot was a built up structure at the time of its letting out. In this regard, Plaintiff relied upon a rent deed dated 14.10.1981, purportedly executed between her father Sh .Kirpa Shankar Seth and the Husband of the Defendant. The original deed was filed on Page No.8 of 13 record and marked as Ex. PW 1/3. The Defendant had denied that any rent deed dated 14.10.1981 was executed between her Husband and the father of Plaintiff at any point of time.
15 Defendant did not step into the witness box but examined one of her son in law namely Sh Sanjay Jain as DW-1 in support of her case .In his affidavit Ex. DW1/A, the witness deposed in consonance with the facts stated in the Written Statement .He denied that Rent Deed dated 14.10.1981(Ex. PW1/3) was executed between his Father in law and Sh. Kripa Shankar Seth. He denied that Rent Deed; Ex. PW1/3 was signed by Sh.Narender Kumar Goel . However, the witness also stated that he had gotten married to one of the daughters of the Defendant in the year 1989 and had not known their family before that time .In circumstances of the case ,Defendant failed to show as to how the testimony of DW1 could be relied upon in regard of the tenancy created in the year 1981 .Nonetheless,DW1 later on , admitted that he was not aware of the conditions in which the suit plot was rented out to his Father in law in the year 1981.
16 The witness had stated in his affidavit Ex. DW1/ A, that three premises of the Plaintiff had been given on rent to his Father in law and that the suit plot was rented out as a built up structure .However ,in his cross examination conducted on 08.09.2011 ,he admitted that these facts were told to him by his father in law and that he was personally not aware of the circumstances in the year 1981.
17 On the other hand ,PW1 identified the signatures of his Father in law on the original Rent Deed dated 14.10.1981 and adduded it in evidence as Ex.PW 1/3.PW-2 i.e.Sh. K. R. Raja deposed that he had witnessed the execution of the Rent Agreement dated 14.10.1981 and further that the suit plot was rented out to the Husband of the Defendant by the Father of the Plaintiff vide the Rent Deed dated 14.10.1981 (Ex.PW 1/3)He also denied the suggestion that the Husband of the Defendant had not signed the Rent Deed dated 14.10.1981.Therefore ,on the basis of strong oral as well as documentary evidence , Plaintiff emerged successful in proving that the suit plot was rented Page No.9 of 13 out to the Husband of the Defendant vide the Rent Deed dated 14.10.198 (Ex.PW 1/3). Defendant failed to prove otherwise.
18 It has already been observed by me in the preceding paragraph (paragraph no 12 ) that Will of Sh.Kripa Shankar Seth (dated 20.01.1982) had been proved by Plaintiff .This Will contained the description of properties of the testator ,which had been rented out by him to different tenants .The suit plot was mentioned at serial no 9 of the list against the noting "M/s universal industries as per Rent Deed 1.10.1975 and 14.10.1981 inside Bagh Shambhu Dayal". The list was followed by another noting stating that the tenants had carried out pucca construction on the open plots of land rented out to them. Thus, the contents of the Will dated 20.1.1982 further lent credence to the claim propounded in the plaint.
19 It is a fundamental principle law of Evidence (as contained in section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act ,1872) that a document in itself is the best piece of evidence in support of contents thereof and no oral evidence should be allowed to be led on the terms thereof. Therefore ,on the basis of the Will dated 20.1.1982 and the Rent Deed dated 14.10.1981 ,it has become clear that the suit plot was infact let out to the Husband of the Defendant as an open plot of land and not as a constructed /built up property. The Defendant has failed to produce any evidence to the contrary. Meaning thereby ,that provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply to the facts of the present case and the suit will not be barred by Sec 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952.
20 The Relationship of Landlord and Tenant has been admitted between the parties .The last paid rent (uptill August 2002)@ Rs. 750 pm is also not denied .The suit of the Plaintiff is also not hit by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act ,19578. The tenancy of the Defendant extended from month to month and has already been terminated by Notice of the Plaintiff dated 13.11.2003. Service of this notice has not been denied by the Defendant.Therefore, it is held that the tenancy of the Defendant has been terminated by legal notice dated 13.11.2003 and the Defendant has become unauthorized occupant of the suit Page No.10 of 13 plot w.e.f 30 .11.2003. Therefore ,the Defendant is liable to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit plot back to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is accordingly held entitled to Relief of Possession . In view therefore, ancillary relief of Permanent Injunction is also granted in her favour .
21 As per the pleadings of parties ,the Defendant had lastly paid rent to the Plaintiff till August 2002 and rent w.e,f September 2002 till date of termination of tenancy on 30.11.2003 had remained unpaid .Admitted rate of rent was Rs. 750 p.m (excluding water and electricity charges).The Defendant has been depositing the rent under the rent control legislation but the same has been objected to by the Plaintiff .However , it has already been held that the suit is not covered by provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore , it is my view that the Plaintiff is not obliged to accept rent deposited under the Rent Control Act .However ,Plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw the same without prejudice to her rights and contentions pleaded in the present suit .Otherwise ,Defendant is ordered to pay arrears of rent w.e.f Septemebr 2002 till Novemer 2003 @ Rs. 750 pm. Plaintiff is granted pendent lite and future interest @10 %p.a on the abovesaid arrears of rent awarded.
22 Plaintiff had also claimed Damages /Mesne Profits for illegal and unauthorized use and occupation of the suit plot by the Defendant w.e.f the date of termination of her tenancy on 30.11.2003. She had claimed damages @ Rs. 10,000/- pm but no evidence was led on her account to prove that she was entitled to damages at this rate .However ,taking judicial notice of the fact that rents in the city have increased manifold in all these years , I am inclined to award damages to the Plaintiff at the following rates :-
(a) Damages for use and occupation of suit plot w.e.f December 2003 to November 2006 @Rs. 5000 pm
(b) Damages for use and occupation of suit plot. w.e.f December 2006 to November 2009 @ Rs.8000p.m
(c) Damages for use and occupation of suit plot w.e.f December 2009
-till the vacation of the suit plot @ Rs. 10,000 pm. Page No.11 of 13
23 Plaintiff is also awarded pendent lite and future interest on the above awarded damages @ 10 %pa. Issues are accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant .
Issue no.(v) & (xi) 24 In view of my findings on the issue nos (i), (ii), (iii),and (iv) stated above ,it has already been held that the suit is not hit by section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Therefore, it is held that the suit is not barred by Section 41
(h) of the Specif Relief Act as the appropriate remedy for regaining possession from the Defendant lay in filing the present suit for Possession against her. Accordingly ,Issues are decided against the Defendant .
Issue no (vi) 25 Defendant was burdened with the onus to prove that Plaintiff was guilty of concealment of material facts from this court .No evidence was led on her account to prove the same .Accordingly ,Issue is decided against the Defendant.
Issue no (vii) 26 No evidence was led by the Defendant to prove that the suit was bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties .On the other hand ,the Issue has already been discussed by me in paragraph no 13 of the findings on Issue nos (i), (ii), (iii) and (viii) ,wherein it has been observed that notice to the Defendant (one of the LR of Sh. Narender Kumar Goel ) on behalf of the rest of the LRS was enough and sufficient to terminate their tenancy .Therefore ,the suit is not bad for misjoinder or non joinder of necessary parties and Issue is decided against the Defendant .
Issue no. (ix) 27 No evidence was led by the Defendant to prove that the suit was incorrectly valued for the purposes of Court Fee and Jurisdiction .On the other hand ,the valuation arrived at by the Plaintiff appears to be proper and in consonance with the provisions of Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act .Thus ,the Issue is decided against the Defendant.
Page No.12 of 13Relief 28 (i) In view of my findings on the Issues framed in the suit, it is held that Plaintiff is entitled for the Decree of Permanent Injunction and Possession of the suit plot (plot measuring 235 sq.yards of land , situated adjacent to the Old Well inside Bagh Shambhu Dayal, Okhla,New Delhi in Khasra No.576, Mouza Bhahapur,Tehsil Mehrauli , New Delhi) as prayed for by her in the plaint. Plaintiff is also held entitled to Recovery of arrears of Rent @ Rs.750/- pm w.e.f September 2002 till November 2003 along with pendentalite and future interest @10% p.a. Plaintiff is further held entitled to Damages /Mesne Profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit plot at the following rates:-
(a) Damages for use and occupation of suit plot w.e.f December 2003 to November 2006 @Rs. 5000 pm
(b) Damages for use and occupation of suit plot. w.e.f December 2006 to November 2009 @ Rs.8000p.m
(c) Damages for use and occupation of suit plot w.e.f December 2009
-till the vacation of the suit plot @ Rs. 10,000 pm.
(ii) Plaintiff is held entitled to pendentalite and future interest on the Damages @10% p.a . Costs of the suit are also awarded to the Plaintiff. Suit of the Plaintiff is accordingly, Decreed. Let a Decree Sheet be prepared on payment of appropriate amount of court fee on the Damages awarded. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Today on 6th February, 2012 (Chhavi Kapoor) Civil Judge-05(W) THC, Delhi/06.02.2012 Page No.13 of 13