Delhi District Court
Darshan Kumar Arora vs Kumarsons Auto Pvt Ltd on 5 August, 2024
DLCT010171212023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL) -01 : CENTRAL, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 1553/23
SH. DARSHAN KUMAR ARORA
S/O LATE SH. BOTHA RAM ARORA
R/O BP-104, FIRST FLOOR,
SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088
MOBILE NO. 9811281247
....... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KUMARSONS AUTO PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SH. BIPIN CHANDRA CHANDULAL SHAH
AT 1562, FIRST FLOOR, CHURCH ROAD,
KASHMERE GATE, DELHI-110006
ALSO AT :
SHOP NO. 10, 3RD FLOOR, 12-12B,
BENHM HALL LANE, OPERA HOUSE,
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23,
Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 1 of 37
MUMBAI-400004, MAHARASHTRA
EMAIL : [email protected].
.... DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 05.12.2023
Date of reserving Judgment : 04.06.2024
Date of decision : 05.08.2024
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF
ARREARS OF RENT, DAMAGES / MESNE PROFITS AND
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages / mesne profits and for permanent injunction.
2. Brief facts as stated by the plaintiff are that
(i) plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property i.e. entire first floor of property no. 1562 having admeasuring 157 square meters situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 , having purchased vide sale deed dated 26.11.2019, from the erstwhile owner Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust through its authorized signatory and representative Swami Vedanand, Chela Swami Govinda Nand Ji Maharaj.
(ii) defendant is occupying the western portion of first floor of CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 2 of 37property no. 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 consisting of two rooms, store, W.C. and bathroom and mezzanine floor / loft over and above a room which is under the tenancy of M/s Narang Pipes Industries the eastern side on the said first floor of the property, which is shown in red colour in the site plan [in short referred to as suit property].
(ii) It has been further stated that defendant was already tenant in the suit property at the time of purchase of same by the plaintiff and said fact of tenancy is duly mentioned in the sale deed dated 26.11.2019 itself and the last paid rent of the said property was of ₹ 4,500/- against receipt to the previous owner hence after purchasing the property defendant become tenant of plaintiff.
(iii) It has been further stated that defendant was informed in this regard vide letter dated 26.11.2019 as well as by the plaintiff and the said letter was physically received by Sh. Bipin Chandra Chandulal Shah, Managing Director of the defendant company regarding purchasing of suit property but defendant did not give any response.
(iv) It has been further stated that the defendant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent with interest vide legal notice dated 02.11.2021, however, the defendant has failed to pay the same.
(v) defendant is liable to vacate the suit property and also pay arrears of rent since 26.11.2019 at the rate of ₹4500/- per month which comes to ₹1,17,000/- till 02.01.2022 and also legally liable CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 3 of 37to pay the same alongwith interest @15% p.a. as the defendant has miserably failed to vacate and handover the physical possession of the suit property within two months from the date of receipt of legal notice dated 02.11.2021, hence, the defendant is liable to pay damages / mesne profits @ 150/- per day w.e.f. 03.01.2022 for the illegal unauthorized use and occupation charges of the suit property till handing over of actual physical possession of the suit property.
(vi) defendant has filed a civil suit for seeking directions to the plaintiff to accept the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,08,000/- only and the relief of permanent injunction which is pending for disposal in the Court of Sh. Dev Saroha, Ld. Civil Judge and fixed for 27.02.2024.
(vii) the plaintiff filed the civil suit for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages / mesne profits & permanent injunction against the defendant in the Court of Sh. Rajesh Malik, Ld. ADJ, however, during the pendency of the said case, the defendant has paid the rent / user charges till 31.03.2023.
(viii) Court of Sh. it was observed that the nature of the present dispute is commercial, hence, the said Hon'ble Court returned the plaint to file the same before the Commercial Court, therefore, he filed the present suit.
3. The plaintiff has prayed for passing of decree for an amount of ₹36,899/- as interest @ 15% p.a. on the arrears of rent of Rs.
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 4 of 371,17,000/- w.e.f. 26.11.2019 till 02.01.2022 and also claimed damages / mesne profits @ 150/- per day w.e.f. 01.04.2023 till 30.11.2023, amounting to Rs. 36,600/-. Plaintiff has also prayed that a decree of possession qua the suit property and permanent injunction
4. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant and defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement. In WS, defendant has denied the contents of the plaint as incorrect. Defendant has taken following defense:
(i) present suit is not maintainable in the present form since the plaintiff has failed to specify the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff qua the suit property.
(ii) suit is bad in the eyes of law for joinder and misjoinder of parties.
(iii) suit is barred by Section 11 of CPC being res-judicata since the defendant has already filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, which is pending in the Court of Sh. Dev Saroha, Ld. Civil Judge, wherein the defendant has already filed WS and did not institute a counter claim for recovery of rent / possession.
(iv) It has been further stated that the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of relief of possession @ ₹10,00,000/- which is hypothecatical and imaginary but neither on the basis of market CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.Page No. 5 of 37
value nor circle rate being a commercial property at prime location, wherein sale deed is stated to have been executed for Rs. 44,02,280/- value of the property whereas market value is about Rs. 1.5 crores.
(iv) defendant on receipt of legal notice dated 02.11.2021 issued by plaintiff's counsel, has submitted the arrears of rent of the suit property w.e.f. December 2019 to November 2021 @ ₹4500/- totaling to ₹ 1,08,000/- through cheque bearing no. 000928 dated 02.11.2021 which was returned unaccepted by the plaintiff.
(v) defendant has moved an application u/s 151 CPC in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge for directing the plaintiff to accept the arrears of rent as admitted rate of ₹4500/- per month from December 2019 till pendency of the aforesaid suit.
(vi) plaintiff has concealed the material fact from this Court that defendant has paid ₹10 lakh as pagdi to Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust on 20.12.2000 at the time of execution of rent agreement and taking over the said premises for commercial purpose and the said fact accepted by the plaintiff, which entitles them to continue business from there itself till the defend desired.
(vii) defendant has deposited a cheque no. 005746 dated 15.03.2023 amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- towards arrears of rent from December 2019 to March 2023, which has been accepted by the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 6 of 37(viii) defendant is willing to pay admitted rent @ Rs. 4500/- without prejudice to his rights and contentions qua actual rent to be determined by this Court. Thus, the defendant has prayed that the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
5. Plaintiff has filed replication in which he denied the contents of WS is incorrect and stated that the contents of the plaint are true and correct.
6. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order dated 13.02.2024 :-
1. Whether the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000, if so what effect ? OPD
2. Whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of the possession of the suit property i.e. Western portion of First Floor of property no. 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 consisting of two rooms, store, W.C. and bathroom and mezzanine floor / loft over and above a room ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed in para-D of prayer ? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of sum of Rs.
36,899/- towards interest @15% per annum on the arrears of rent / rent user charges of Rs. 1,17,000/-w.e.f. 26.11.2019 till 02.01.2022 ? OPP CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 7 of 376. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages / mesne profits of Rs. 36,600/- alongwith future damages / mesne profits at the same rate w.e.f. 01.12.2023 till the date of actual vacation and handing over the physical possession of the suit property by defendant to the plaintiff ? OPP
7. Relief.
7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and also examined two other witnesses i.e. Ms. Manju, Sr. Assistant, Sub-Registrar-I as PW2 and Sh. Manmohan Kapoor as PW3.
8. On the other hand, in order to deny the claim of plaintiff, defendant has examined its Manager Sh. Arun Singh as DW1, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and also examined two other witnesses i.e. Sh. Sanjeev Narang as DW2 and Sh. Arun Kumar as DW3.
9. Arguments have been heard from Sh. Rajiv Mehra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. J.C. Vashishth, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
10. PW1 Sh. Darshan Kumar in his evidence led by way of CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 8 of 37affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that he is the absolute owner of the property i.e. entire first floor of property no. 1562 having admeasuring 157 square meters situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006, having purchased vide sale deed dated 26.11.2019, from the erstwhile owner Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust through its authorized signatory and representative Swami Vedanand, Chela Swami Govinda Nand Ji Maharaj. Defendant is occupying the western portion of first floor of property no. 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi- 110006 consisting of two rooms, store, W.C. and bathroom and mezzanine floor / loft over and above a room which is under the tenancy of M/s Narang Pipes Industries the eastern side on the said first floor of the property. He further deposed that after purchasing the said property by the plaintiff, the defendant became the tenant of the plaintiff and the defendant was duly informed in this regard vide letter dated 26.11.2019 and the said letter was physically received by Sh. Bipin Chandra Chandulal Shah, Managing Director of the defendant company but defendant did not give any response. the defendant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent with interest vide legal notice dated 02.11.2021, however, the defendant has failed to pay the same. He further deposed that last paid rent of the said property was ₹ 4,500/- and defendant is to pay arrears of rent since 26.11.2019 at the rate of ₹4500/- per month which comes to ₹1,17,000/- till 02.01.2022 and also legally liable to pay the same alongwith interest @15% CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 9 of 37p.a. as the defendant has miserably failed to vacate and handover the physical possession of the suit property within two months from the date of receipt of legal notice dated 02.11.2021, hence, the defendant is liable to pay damages / mesne profits @ 150/- per day w.e.f. 03.01.2022 for the illegal unauthorized use and occupation charges of the suit property till handing over of actual physical possession of the suit property.
He further deposed that defendant has filed a civil suit for seeking directions to the plaintiff to accept the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,08,000/- only and the relief of permanent injunction which is pending for disposal in the Court of Sh. Dev Saroha, Ld. Civil Judge and fixed for 27.02.2024. He further deposed that he filed the civil suit for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages / mesne profits & permanent injunction against the defendant in the Court of Sh. Rajesh Malik, Ld. ADJ, however, during the pendency of the said case, it was observed that the nature of the present dispute is commercial, hence, the said Hon'ble Court returned the plaint to file the same before the Commercial Court, therefore, he filed the present suit. He further deposed that during the pendency of the said suit before Ld. ADJ, the defendant has paid the rent / user charges till 31.03.2023, however, he has not relinquished his rights to claim interest over the arrears of rent / user charges from the defendant. He further deposed that he filed an application before DLSA, Central on 01.08.2023 for pre-litigation mediation but no settlement arrived CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 10 of 37and non-starter report was issued on 20.11.2023. He further deposed that defendant is liable to pay ₹36,899/- as interest @ 15% p.a. on the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,17,000/- w.e.f. 26.11.2019 till 02.01.2022 and also liable to pay ₹ 36,600/- towards damages / mesne profits @ 150/- per day w.e.f. 01.04.2023 till 30.11.2023.
He has also relied upon the following documents :-
1. Site plan of the suit property as Ex. PW1/1.
2. True copy of sale deed dated 26.11.2019 by which plaintiff purchased the suit property as Ex. PW1/2.
3. Copy of letter dated 26.11.2019 as Ex.
PW1/2A .
4. Office copy of legal notice dated 2.11.2021 as Ex. PW1/3, its postal receipts as Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/7 and returned envelopes as Ex. PW1/8 and Ex. PW1/9.
5. Reply dated 27.11.2021 and the copy of cheque as Ex.PW1/10 (Colly.).
6. Copy of notice dated 22.12.2021 as Ex.
PW1/11 along with postal receipts as Ex. PW1/12 to Ex. PW1/15 and returned envelopes as Ex. PW1/16 and Ex. PW1/17.
7. Four internet generated tracking reports as Ex.
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 11 of 37PW1/18 to Ex. PW1/21.
8. Company master data of defendant as Ex.
PW1/22.
9. Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/23.
10. Certified copies of entire ordersheets from 1.4.2022 to 11.7.2023 including stay order passed in suit No. 615/2020 (348/2022) as Ex. PW1/24 (Colly. 17 pages).
11. In his cross examination, he has deposed that the resolution in favour of Swami Vedanand, is duly available with the original sale deed brought by me today. However, no copy of the same has been placed on record with Ex. PW1/2. He was aware that defendant is the tenant in the suit property at the time of purchase of the property. He admitted that defendant has sent a cheque of Rs. 1,08,000/- to him as arrears of rent and he returned the same. He admitted that defendant has filed a case before Ld. Civil Judge seeking direction against him to accept the rent. He also admit that before the court of Sh. Rajesh Malik, Ld. ADJ, Central.defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as rent. He is not ready to accept Rs. 6000/- as rent from defendant if he offered to him because the market rent of the premises is much higher which would be around Rs. 50,000/- per month as adjoining property is rented on the said rent and further Vol. deposed that he CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 12 of 37require the property for his use therefore he does not want to give the same on rent on any rate. He deposed that he does not know whether defendant has given Rs. 10 lacs as pagree पगड़ी at the time of taking the premises on rent to Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust (erstwhile owner) in December 2000. He stated that he cannot say that at present defendant is not liable to pay the arrear of Rs. 1,17,000/- (Vol. His son keep the record as I am sr. citizen). He denied the suggestion that defendant is not liable to pay Rs. 150/- per day as mesne profits / damages.
12. PW2 Ms. Manju, Sr. Assistant at Sub-Registrar-I is a formal witness and only proved sale deed dt.29.11.2019 of suit property executed between Yogeshwar Guru Ganeshwar Charitable Trust & Darshan Kumar Arora, having registration No. 11948 in book No. 1, Vol. No. 7916 on page 177 to 183 as Ex. PW2/1.
13. PW3 Sh. Manmohan Kapoor, Sewadar in Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust, deposed that Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2, which has been executed by the trust in favour of Darshan Kumar Arora bears the signature of Swami Vedanand who is trustee of the aforesaid trust at point A on each pages and also deposed that document i.e. letter dated 26.11.2019 written by Swami Vedanand on behalf of trust to Kumar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. which is already Ex. PW1/2A bears the signature of Swami Vedanand at point A and further deposed that seal impression of trust is also appearing on the said letter.
14. In his cross examination, he deposed that he is going to the CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 13 of 37said trust since his childhood but started sewadari after his retirement. He does not remember what was the capital of trust in year 2022-23. He does not know since when Kumar & Sons is the tenant in the property no. 1562, entire first floor, Church Road, Keshmere Gate, Delhi-06 and does not know anything about the execution of rent agreement of the said property between trust and Kumar & Sons. He was shown rent agreement dated 20.12.2000 Mark P3/X between trust and Kumar & Sons but he deposed that does not know anything about the said agreement and cannot identify the signature of Swami Govindanand on the said agreement as he has never seen him signing and writing and voluntarily deposed that he has expired. The said agreement for the purpose of identification is marked as.
He depose that at present trust property is managed by Swami Vedanand Ji. He does not know who are the other trustees of the aforesaid trust. He cannot say whether upto date rent was paid by Kumar & Sons prior to selling of the said property to plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that the property in question was never been used for residential purpose. (Vol. Saint persons used to stay in that property in the past). He does not remember till when the saint used to reside in the said property. He does not know whether the said property is being used as commercial purpose since 40 years. He was shown three property receipts Mark P3/X1 to Mark P3/X3 but he deposed that he does not know about the said receipts. He deposed that there was no financial CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 14 of 37requirement of the trust to sell out the said property except the reason as mentioned above. He deposed that he does not know whether the Kumar & Sons has paid Rs. 10 lakhs as pagdi to the trust at the time of creation of the tenancy. He does not have any knowledge personal knowledge of the sale deed Ex. 1/2. He was not told anything about the said sale deed by Swami Vedanand.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
15. On the other hand, in order to deny the claim of plaintiff, defendant has examined its Manager Sh. Arun Singh as DW1, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and deposed that he is the authorized presentative of defendant company vide resolution dated 02.01.2024 and the defendant is a private limited company having its registered office at Mumbai and operating from various cities throughout India including Delhi at 1562, Church Road, Kahsmre Gate, Delhi. He further deposed that defendant is in possession, occupation and usage of a shop at the first floor portion presently being used as godown in property bearing no. 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, comprising two rooms on first floor and one store room on the mezzanine floor with kitech, one bathroom, one water closet and one store [suit property]. He further deposed that on 20.12.2000 the suit property was taken on rent from Swami Govinda Nand disciple of Sarva Nandji R/o 13, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, Managing Trustee of Yogeshwar Guru CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 15 of 37Gangeshwar Charitable Trust, 13, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 @ Rs. 800/- per month vide notarised rent agreement every year over a period of time as mentioned in terms and conditions of the agreement. He further deposed that he has been paying rent regularly and lastly the rent was Rs. 4500/- per month till 1st December, 2019. He further deposed that he paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards as arrears of rent from December 2019 to March 2023 vide cheque no. 005746, as per directions of Sh. Rajesh Malik, Ld. ADJ Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He further deposed that he is ready and willing to pay the mutually agreed rate of rent as per prevailing market rates, which is presently at about @6,000/- per month with an increase of 5% after every 2 years. He further deposed that he is maintaining the demised premises and earlier the demised premises was being used as Delhi Sales Office for about 4 years which has not got cancelled since Delhi branch of defendant company was running in losses as Delhi market was highly competitive. He further deposed that presently the demised premises is being used for the collecting and storing factory raw materials, its packing and dispatch. He further deposed that transfer of the title of the suit property from the landlord-cum-title holder i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust to the plaintiff is forged and fabricated but not for the bonafide legal necessity as mentioned in the sale deed registered under document no. 11948 in book No. 1, Vol. No. 7916 on page 177 to 183 dated 29.11.2019 with the office of Sub-
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 16 of 37Registrar-1, Delhi. He further deposed that the suit property is being used as commercial property since time immemorial whereas the plaintiff has stated to have purchased it for residential purpose, hence, there is a huge loss of revenue to the state exchequer by changing of usage from commercial to residential.
He has also relied upon the following documents :-
1. Copy of board resolution dated 2.1.2024 as Mark DW1/1
2. Copy of rent agreement as Ex. P3/X .
3. Copy of statement of account as Mark DW1/3A and four rent receipts as Mark DW1/3B to Mark DW1/3E
4. Copy of GST registration as Mark DW1/4A, TIN number certificates as Mark DW1/4B
5. Property tax receipt as Ex. PW3/X1 and electricity bill as Ex. PW3/X2
16. In his cross examination, DW1 has deposed that he is doing service with the defendant company from the year 2012, initially as Senior Designing Engineer and now as Plant Head. The said plant is lying stalled at Dehradun. He denied the suggestion that the Sh. Bipin Chandra Chandu Lal Shah is working with defendant No. 1 as Managing Director (Vol. He is just a partner). He deposed that the red portion in the site plan Ex.
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 17 of 37PW1/1 is in possession of the defendant. He admitted that notice Ex. PW1/3 was duly served upon the defendant company. He admitted that the notice dated 22.12.2021 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant company alongwith a cheque of Rs. 1,08,000/-.He admitted that he was not present when the rent agreement took place between the erstwhile owner of suit property and defendant. He denied that no Pagri was given at the time of renting out suit property to the defendant.
17. Defendant has also examined Sh. Sanjeev Narang as DW2, who in his evidence led by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A, has deposed that he is in possession of a shop at Eastern portion of 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 for the last more than 30 years. He further deposed that defendant M/s Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd. are in occupation and use of a shop on rent for the last about 23-24 years at wester portion of 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 which is adjacent to their shop. He further deposed that he as well as defendant has taken their shops on rent after payment of pagdi the system prevalent in the market at that time from Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust, 13, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 and that the suit property has never been used for residential purposes.
18. In his cross examination, he deposed that he does not remember the exact date when the tenancy was created in favour CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 18 of 37of defendant. Same might be created 20 years ago. Through the defendant he came to know about the fact that pagri was taken by the erstwhile owner of the suit property from defendant at the time of creation of tenancy in favour of defendant. He admitted that plaintiff has filed an eviction petition against the Narang Pipes which is pending in the court of Ms. Megha Arya, Ld. ARC, central. He was shown site plan Ex. PW1/1 and he deposed that portion shown in red colour is in possession of the defendant. The mezzanine floor in the suit property is in possession of Narang pipes. He deposed that he cannot identify from the portion mentioned at point A, B, C and D in site plan whether same is mezzanine floor or not. He denied the suggestion that the access of mezzanine floor is leading from the portion of defendant and deposed that the portion which goes to mezzanine floor is in his possession. He denied the suggestion that the defendant is in possession of any mezzanine floor. He admitted that there is a wall between portion under tenancy of Narang Pipes and Kumarsons. I might have gone to the portion of defendant about 2-4 months ago. He does not know whether there is a kitchen latrine bathroom in the said portion
19. Defendant has also examined Sh. Arun Kumar as DW3, who in his evidence led by way of affidavit Ex. DW3/A, has deposed that he is working as Purchase Officer (Delhi) of M/s Kumar Sons Auto Pvt. Ltd. Co., 1562, First Floor, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 for the last five years. He further CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 19 of 37deposed that he has been purchasing material from local (Delhi) market, storing the material in the suit property and transporting the goods to its factory in Dehradun and / or other locations as per instructions from company.
20. In his cross examination, he deposed that he is doing the service with the defendant last about 5 years. He deposed that they have placed on record the bills to show the defendant is doing the business from the said address. He denied the suggestion that defendant is not running its business from the said premises. The suit premises consists of a cabin and a mezzanine floor / loft which is having approach through the iron staircase. He identify the tenanted portion from the staircase approaching to the mezzanine floor / loft and pointed out the portion Mark in between points E, F, G and H in the site plan Ex. PW1/1.
ARGUMENTS
21. It is argued by learned counsel for plaintiff that from the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses and documents it is proved that plaintiff is absolute owner of the property i.e. entire first floor of property no. 1562 having admeasuring 157 square meters situated at Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006, which was purchased vide sale deed dated 26.11.2019, from the erstwhile owner Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust through its authorized signatory and representative Swami Vedanand, Chela Swami Govinda Nand Ji Maharaj vide sale deed Ex. PW1/2, and CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 20 of 37after purchasing the suit property by the plaintiff, the defendant became the tenant of the plaintiff and defendant was intimated in in this regard vide letter dated 26.11.2019 which was sent by the erstwhile owner to authorized person of defendant Ex. PW1/2A, legal notice dated 02.11.2021 Ex. PW1/3 and its reply dated 27.11.2021 with copy of cheque Ex. PW1/10 (colly).
22. He further argued that it is not disputed by defendant either in WS or by the defendant witnesses that defendant is tenant of plaintiff or that the rate of rent is Rs. 4500/- per month, as such the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the possession as the DRC Act, 1958 is not applicable rent being above Rs. 3500/- per month.
23. He further argued that from the testimony of PW1 it is proved that despite issuing legal notice dated 02.11.2021 to the defendant he has failed to pay the arrears of rent. Defendant was in arrears of rent since 26.11.2019 at the rate of Rs. 4500/- per month which comes to Rs. 1,17,000/- till 02.01.2022 and defendant is legally liable to pay the same alongwith interest @15% p.a.
24. He further argued that since defendant has failed to vacate and handover the physical possession of the suit property within two months from the date of receipt of legal notice dated 02.11.2021, hence, the defendant is liable to pay damages / mesne profits @ 150/- per day w.e.f. 03.01.2022 for the illegal unauthorized use and occupation charges of the suit property till CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 21 of 37handing over of actual physical possession of the suit property.
25. He further argued that from the testimony of PW1 the suit property is lying vacant and abandoned by which the suit property has been damaged substantially and the suit property is not required by the defendant for any purposes and the defendant has been occupying the suit property with a view to extort money from the plaintiff.
26. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant argued that PW1 has failed to prove the rate of rent, consequently arrears of rent or damages / mesne profits.
27. Ld. Counsel for defendant further argued that the plaintiff has incurred loss of stamp duty to the State Government by getting registration of commercial property as residential, hence, the purchase / sell transaction is required to be declared as null and void after impounding Sale Deed u/s 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
28. Ld. Counsel for defendant further argued that the sale / purchase transaction of suit property is void ab-initio for want of permission of the Court to dispose of the suit property owned by Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust as held by Hon'ble Justice Mr. Vikramjit Sen, Delhi High Court in the year of 2005, as stated that trust property cannot be sold, mortgaged or exchanged without courts prior approval , therefore, in these circumstances, defendant is not liable to pay any amount and suit CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 22 of 37is liable to be dismissed with costs.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE / FINDINGS Issue No. 1 :
"Whether the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000, if so what effect ? OPD"
29. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant as defendant in written statement has alleged that defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000. DW1 in his examination in chief Ex. DW1/A, nowhere deposed that defendant company has paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000 at the time of taking the suit property on rent. He has proved relied upon copy of rent agreement Ex. P3/X, copy of statement of account as Mark DW1/3A and four rent receipts as Mark DW1/3B to Mark DW1/3E but in none of the documents it is mentioned that Rs. 10 lakh was given as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000 at the time of taking the suit property on rent.
30. Similarly, DW2 Sh. Sanjeev Narang & DW3 Sh. Arun Kumar also in their testimonies have neither produced any documents nor deposed that defendant has given a sum of Rs. 10 CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 23 of 37lakh as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000.
31. As far as the testimony of plaintiff witnesses are concern, from perusal of his testimony is concerned, from perusal of cross examination of PW1 I found that he has been given suggestion in his cross examination that Rs. 10 lakh was given by defendant as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000 at the time of taking the suit property on rent but he denied that he does not know whether defendant has given Rs. 10 lakh as pagdi as no such fact was disclosed to him by the previous owner. Defendant has not examined any person or erstwhile owner of the Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust to prove the same. Similarly, no suggestion has been given to PW3 Sh. Manmohan Kapoor, who is Sewadar in Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust, in his cross examination but he stated that he does not know about the said fact. In these circumstances, nothing much has come out in the cross examinations of plaintiff's witnesses that Rs. 10 lakh was given by defendant as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000 at the time of taking the suit property on rent. Hence, nothing much has came out in their testimony in favour of defendant to inferred that defendant has paid Rs. 10 Lakh as Pagree.
32. In view of abovesaid discussion I held that defendant has CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 24 of 37miserably failed to prove that he has paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh as pagdi to the landlord i.e. Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitabale Trust on 20.12.2000 at the time of taking the suit property in rent, therefore, I decide issue no. 1 in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff ? OPP
33. PW1 has testified that that he has purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 26.11.2019, from the erstwhile owner Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust through its authorized signatory and representative Swami Vedanand, Chela Swami Govinda Nand Ji Maharaj and thereafter, the defendant was duly informed in this regard vide letter dated 26.11.2019 Ex. PW1/2A and the said letter was physically received by Sh. Bipin Chandra Chandulal Shah, Managing Director of the defendant company. He has also proved the legal notice dated 02.11.2021 as Ex. PW1/3 sent by him to the defendant whereby he has stated that he become landlord and asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises. He further deposed that in response to the said letter, defendant has sent reply sent through its Counsel Sh. J.C. Vashistha, Ex. PW1/10 ( admitted by defendant) in which defendant Counsel has categorically stated that " The rent was being tendered to your client who did not accept the same on one or other ground. However my client has already submitted a cheque bearing no. 000928 for Rs. 1,08,000/- vide letter dated CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 25 of 3702.11.2021 as arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.12.2019 to 30.11.2021 with the assurance that his client shall be regularly paying the agreed rent to plaintiff. On perusal of cross examination of PW1 it is evident that no suggestion has beengiven to the PW1 to deny the fact that plaintiff has sent the legal notice EXPW1/3 and defendant sent the reply EXPW1/10. The suggestion given to PW1 that defendant has sent a cheque of Rs. 1,08,000/- to him as arrears of rent and he returned the same and that defendant has filed a case before Ld. Civil Judge seeking direction against him to accept the rent proved that defendant has acknowledge the plaintiff as landlord. Thus, in my view plaintiff through the testimony of PW1 has been able to prove that defendant has accepted the plaintiff as its landlord.
34. Further defendant in the WS has not denied the plaintiff purchasing the suit property or that plaintiff is not the owner of suit property or that defendant is not the tenant of plaintiff. Rather defendant has categorically admitted in WS it paid for Rs. 180,000/- as arrear of rent as admitted Rant @ 45000/- from December 2019 to March 2023, on the direction of Court of Sh. Rajesh Malik Ld. ADJ passed in civil suit no.CS/ADJ/348/22, thus defendant has not denied in WS that it is not the tenant of plaintiff.
35. I am also not agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that sale deed in favour of plaintiff was nullity as the erstwhile owner has no necessity to sell out the suit property of CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 26 of 37the trust therefore plaintiff did not become owner, hence, defendant is not the tenant of plaintiff. Undoubtedly DW1 in his testimony has deposed that transfer of title of the suit property by Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Trust to the plaintiff is forged and fabricated but not for legal necessity as mentioned in the sale deed but since defendant has not taken any such stand in WS, hence, same cannot be considered being beyond pleadings. Secondly once defendant tendered rent to plaintiff it admitted him as landlord and thus he is estopped from denying his title on the suit property. Therefore, in these circumstances, I held that the plaintiff through the testimonies of his witnesses and documents, has been able to prove that plaintiff has purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 26.11.2019, from the erstwhile owner Yogeshwar Guru Gangeshwar Charitable Trust through its authorized signatory and representative Swami Vedanand, Chela Swami Govinda Nand Ji Maharaj and after purchasing the same, he intimated the defendant about the same, hence, defendant has admitted his tenancy. Hence, I hold that defendant is the tenant of plaintiff. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of the possession of the suit property i.e. Western portion of First Floor of property no. 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi- 110006 consisting of two rooms, store, W.C. and bathroom and mezzanine floor / loft over and above a room ? OPP CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 27 of 3736. The Plaintiff in the plaint as well as through the testimony of PW1 has deposed that last paid rent by defendant was 4500/- per month which he paid till 1st December 2019. The defendant in the WS has not denied the said facts nor has given any suggestion to PW1 denying the said fact. Rather in para 5 of preliminary objection and also in the para no. 4 of the evidence affidavit of DW1 Arun Kumar it is admitted by DW1 that rate of rent paid by defendant till Dec 2019 is Rs. 4500/- per month. Hence defendant is not protected by the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as same is not applicable in view of section 3 (C) of DRC Act. Admittedly, plaintiff has given notice dated 02.11.2021 to the defendant to vacate the premises and defendant has admitted of receiving the same and defendant has the reply EXPW1/10 in which it tendered the rent but did not say anything about vacating the premises.
37. Now question how a landlord can terminate the tenancy of tenant who is not protected by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act provides that 15 days notice is to be given before termination of tenancy. Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is reproduced as under :-
"106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage.--
(1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.Page No. 28 of 37
month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice. (3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.
(4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property".
38. Further section 111 of TPA provides about determination of lease which is reproduce as below:
111. Determination of lease.--
A lease of immoveable property determines--
(a)by efflux of the time limited thereby;
(b)where such time is limited conditionally on the happening of some event--by the happening of such event;
(c)where the interest of the lessor in the property terminates on, or his power to dispose of the same extends only to, the happening of any event--by the happening of such event;
(d)in case the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person in the same right;
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 29 of 37(e)by express surrender; that is to say, in case the lessee yields up his interest under the lease to the lessor, by mutual agreement between them;
(f)by implied surrender;
(g)by forfeiture; that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter; or (2)in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; or (3)the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event; and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease;
(h)on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to the other.
Illustration to clause (f)A lessee accepts from his lessor a new lease of the property leased, to take effect during the continuance of the existing lease. This is an implied surrender of the former lease, and such lease determines thereupon.
39. From the aforesaid provision of section 106 of Transfer of Property Act ( TPA),1882 a tenancy can be terminated by giving six month notice where the lease is for agricultural or manufacturing and 15 days notice for other purposes. Further from section111 of TPA it is evident that where lease is for a fixed period it can be terminated after efflux of time. In the present case as per Rent Agreement executed between defendant and erstwhile landlord mark PW3/X the purpose of the lease deed CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 30 of 37is not mentioned. Plaintiff/ PW1 in his testimony has not deposed for what purpose the premises was let out. Even PW3 who was a Sewadar of erstwhile landlord who let out the premises has not deposed anything in his testimony about the same. The suggestion given to him that premises given for shop prove that it was not for agriculture or manufacturing purpose. Admittedly it is not the case of defendant that suit property was being use for manufacturing or agriculture purpose as said facts was not stated by defendant either in WS or in the testimony of defendant's witnesses. As per rent agreement Mark P3/X clause 4 (ii) period for tenancy was three year and has to renew after every three year with the consent of both the parties. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has deposed when last time said period was renewed. Therefore, presumption has to be arisen that it was being renewed every years. The rent deed was executed on 20.12.2000, therefore, if I presume that it was renewed every three years, it would have been lastly renewed on 20.12.2018 by erstwhile landlord for three year i.e. till 19.12.2021. It is not the case of the defendant that after 19.12.2021 the plaintiff has renewed the tenancy as plaintiff purchased the suit property on 26.11.2019. Hence tenancy has also expired by efflux of time on 19.12.2021.
The plaintiff has given notice to the defendant to vacate the premises on 02.11.2021, therefore, plaintiff can terminate the lease deed after giving 15 days notice as per section 106 as property is not being used for manufacturing or agricultural CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 31 of 37purpose and further if I presume that lease was renewed by previous landlord after every three year as provided in the lease deed defendant is liable to vacate the premises as tenancy expired by efflux of time.
40. As far as contention of learned counsel for defendant that since plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction, therefore, plaintiff cannot seek decree of possession and need to file counter claim is concerned, I am not agree with the submissions of learned counsel for defendant, in my view, the suit filed by the defendant in the Court of Sh. Dev Saroha, Ld. Civil Judge seeking relief of injunction against the plaintiff for vacating the premises no way barred the plaintiff to seek legal remedy of seeking decree of permanent injunction by filing a separate suit. It is prerogative of the plaintiff either to seek to relief of possession by way of counter claim or to file fresh separate suit. The only defendant can seek stay of subsequent suit i.e. present suit as per provision of Section 10 CPC, if matter in issue in present suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the suit filed by defendant but no such action has been taken by defendant. Therefore, I held that plaintiff cannot be declined the relief of possession on this ground that defendant has file the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and same is pending in another Court.
41. As far as another contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff has failed to prove that it required the suit property CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 32 of 37for bonafide reason, in my view there is no such requirement when tenancy is not protected under Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958.
42. In view of above said facts and circumstances I hold that plaintiff is entitle to relief of possession of suit property even if defendant has paid the rent after receiving notice as it is the will of plaintiff to continue defendant as tenant or not despite paying upto date rent.
43. In view of above, I held that plaintiff is entitled to decree of the possession of the suit property i.e. Western portion of First Floor of property no. 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi- 110006 consisting of two rooms, store, W.C. and bathroom and mezzanine floor / loft over and above a room. Issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No. 4 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed in para-D of prayer ? OPP
44. In view of my above findings that since defendant is tenant in the suit premises, therefore, defendant has no right to create any third party interest in the suit property. Hence, I held that plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, therefore, I restrain the defendant, its directors, successors, legal heirs, nominees, assigns, agents, attorneys representative etc. from alienating, assigning, parting with possession and / or from creating any kind of third party right / interest in the suit property i.e. Western portion of First Floor of property no. 1562, Church Road, CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 33 of 37Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 consisting of two rooms, store, W.C. and bathroom and mezzanine floor / loft over and above a room, which is shown in Red Colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. Issue No. 4 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 5 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of sum of Rs. 36,899/- towards interest @15% per annum on the arrears of rent / rent user charges of Rs. 1,17,000/- w.e.f. 26.11.2019 till 02.01.2022 ? OPP
45. The plaintiff has claimed Rs. 36,899/- towards interest @ 15% per annum on the arrears of rent / rent user charges of Rs. 1,17,000/- w.e.f. 26.11.2019 till 02.01.2022. In my view, there is no provision in the rent agreement Mark P3/X to pay the interest in case of delayed in payment of rent. The plaintiff has deposed that defendant has paid last rent on 01.12.2019. The plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination, the defendant has sent a cheque of Rs. 1,08,000/- to him as arrears of rent and he returned the same. From the legal notice sent by the plaintiff it is evident that plaintiff intimated about the arrear of rent to the defendant only on 02.11.2021 Ex. PW1/3 dated 02.11.2021 posted on the same day and defendant has sent reply dt. 27.11.2021 alongwith copy of cheque Ex. PW1/10 (colly). Though plaintiff has not accepted the said rent, therefore, it appears that plaintiff was not interested to getting rent from the defendant that is why he has not accepted the rent. Plaintiff has produced document / letter dated 26.11.2019 Ex.
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 34 of 37PW1/2A sent to the defendant qua intimation that he has purchased the suit property but in the said notice, the plaintiff has not demanded any rent from the defendant, therefore, it cannot be said that defendant delayed in payment of rent, therefore, in my view, plaintiff is not entitled Rs. 36,899/- towards interest @15% per annum on the arrears of rent / rent user charges of Rs. 1,17,000/- w.e.f. 26.11.2019 till 02.01.2022. Issue no. 4 is decided accordingly in favour of defendant and against plaintiff.
Issue No. 6 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages / mesne profits of Rs. 36,600/- alongwith future damages / mesne profits at the same rate w.e.f. 01.12.2023 till the date of actual vacation and handing over the physical possession of the suit property by defendant to the plaintiff ? OPP
46. The plaintiff has claimed damages / mesne profits @ Rs.150/- per day w.e.f. 01.04.2023 till 30.11.2023 i.e. for 244 days amounting to Rs. 36,600/- for 8 months and 4 days. It is not the case of the defendant that defendant has paid any rent from 01.04.2023 onwards. The plaintiff has claimed damages / mesne profits @150/- per day which comes to Rs. 4500/- per month i.e. the undisputed rent which defendant paid till 31.03.2023, therefore, in my view, the plaintiff is entitled decree of damages / mesne profits of Rs. 36,600/-. Further, I held that the plaintiff will be entitled damages / mesne profits @ Rs. 4500/- per month from CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 35 of 3701.12.2023 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree. Further, defendant is also liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the said amount, if said amount is not paid within three months. Further, I held that plaintiff will be entitled damages / mesne profits @ Rs. 4500/- per month every month from the date of decree till the date of actual vacation and handing over the physical possession of the suit property by defendant to the plaintiff, failing which defendant will pay interest @12% p.a. on the said amount. Issue No. 6 is decided accordingly.
Relief
47. In view of my findgs in above issues, I pass a decree of pos- session in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant direct- ing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of suit property i.e. Western portion of First Floor of property no. 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 consisting of two rooms, store, W.C. and bathroom and mezzanine floor / loft over and above a room.
Further, I pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its directors, successors, legal heirs, nominees, as- signs, agents, attorneys representative etc. from alienating, assign- ing, parting with possession and / or from creating any kind of third party right / interest in the suit property i.e. Western portion of First Floor of property no. 1562, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23, Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 36 of 37Delhi-110006 consisting of two rooms, store, W.C. and bathroom and mezzanine floor / loft over and above a room, which is shown in Red Colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/1.
Further, I pass a decree of damages / mesne profits of Rs. 36,600/-. Further, the plaintiff will be entitled damages / mesne profits @ Rs. 4500/- per month from 01.12.2023 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree. Further, defendant is also liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the said amount, if said amount is not paid within three months. Further, the plaintiff will be entitled damages / mesne profits @ Rs. 4500/- per month every month from the date of decree till the date of actual vacation and handing over the physical possession of the suit property by defendant to the plain- tiff, failing which defendant will pay interest @12% p.a. on the said amount.
The plaintiff is also entitled to costs of the suit. However, the plaintiff is not entitled Rs. 36,899/- towards interest @15% per annum on the arrears of rent / rent user charges of Rs. 1,17,000/- w.e.f. 26.11.2019 till 02.01.2022. Decree sheet be prepared ac-
cordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
SANJEEV by SANJEEV
KUMAR
Pronounced in open Court KUMAR AGGARWAL
on 05.08.2024 AGGARWAL Date: 2024.08.05
16:33:14 +0530
(Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS (COMM) NO. 1553/23,
Darshan Kumar Arora Vs. Kumarsons Auto Pvt. Ltd.
Page No. 37 of 37