Delhi District Court
Manjeet Singh @ Pappu vs Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar on 2 January, 2023
In The Court Of Ms. Paridhi Sharma, Administrative Civil Judge
cumCommercial Cases JudgecumAdditional Rent Controller,
South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
CNR No. : DLSW030000392018
Manjeet Singh @ Pappu versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar
a) Civil Suit No. : 45/2018
b) Name & address of the : Manjeet Singh @ Pappu,
plaintiff S/o Late Jaswant Singh,
R/o RZD5/17, Gali No. 5,
Ground Floor, Vaishist Park
(Village Dabri), Pankha
Road, Opp. Janak Cinema,
New Delhi 110046.
c) Name & address of the : Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar,
defendant W/o Vijay Shankar
Bhatnagar,
R/o RZD5/5, Gali No. 5,
Second Floor, Vaishist Park
(Village Dabri), Pankha
Road, Opp. Janak Cinema,
New Delhi 110046.
Date of Institution : 09.01.2018
Judgment pronounced on : 02.01.2023
Suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and
mesne profit.
Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 1/11
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgement, I shall dispose of the instant civil suit filed by Manjeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") against Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit.
2. Factual Matrix: It is stated in the plaint that property bearing No. RZ D5/17, Gali no. 5, Ground Floor, Vashisht Park (Village Dabri), Pankha Road, Opposite Janak Cinema, New Delhi 110046 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") was owned and possessed by Late Sh. Jaswant Singh who died on 08.12.2013. The plaintiff has alleged that pursuant to the death of the abovementioned person, all rights/interests in the suit property devolved upon him, being the son of Late Sh. Jaswant Singh. It is further averred that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the father of the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/ in the year 2008 which was increased from time to time. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant did not regularly pay the rent and has been in arrears thereof since 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017. The plaintiff has added that the arrears of rent cumulatively amount to Rs. 1,08,000/. It is averred that the market rent that the suit property can fetch is Rs. 15,000/ per month. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by sending a composite notice dated 18.12.2017. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant did not vacate the property in Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 2/11 question and has been an unauthorised occupant thereof. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking ejectment of the defendant, recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit.
3. Relief sought: The following reliefs have been sought by the plaintiff in the instant suit:
i) to pass a decree of possession/ejectment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the shop situated in property bearing No. RZD5/17, Gali No. 5, Ground Floor, Vashisht Park (Village Dabri), Pankha Road, Opp. Janak Cinema, New Delhi110046;
ii) to pass a decree of arrears of rent of Rs. 1,08,000/ together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the period from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
iii) to pass a decree of damages and mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs. 1,000/ and further decree for the period both pendente lite and future till the handing over of the possession at the rate of Rs. 500/ per day as provided under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC till the defendant actually vacate and handover the peaceful physical possession of the property or on such rate which this Hon'ble Court may arrive at after holding enquiry and plaintiff undertakes to pay the deficient court fee at the time of passing of the final decree;
Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 3/11(iv) Cost of the suit be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
(v) Grant any other order(s)/relief(s) which this court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
4. Written Statement: In response to the plaint, the defendant filed written statement wherein it is stated that the plaintiff has not filed any document with respect to the fact that he is the son of the previous landlord. The defendant has admitted that she was inducted as the tenant in the suit property by Late Sh. Jaswant Singh in the year 2008. However, defendant has denied that she has not paid the rent regularly and that she has been in arrears thereof to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff threatened her to vacate the property in the capacity of the son of the landlord. The defendant has denied the existence of any landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and herself. With these contentions, the defendant has sought dismissal of the suit.
5. Issues framed: On the basis of the pleadings, the court framed issues vide order dated 02.05.2019 which are as follows:
(a) Whether the last paid agreed rent of the suit property is Rs. 3000/ per month? (OPP) Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 4/11
(b) Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent since December 2013 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ per month? (OPP)
(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 1,08,000/ at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ per month for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017? (OPP)
(d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,08,000/, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
(e) Whether the suit property if let out in the open market and fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/? (OPP)
(f) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages/ mesne profits of Rs. 1000/ as on the date of filing of the suit? (OPP)
(g) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
(h) Relief.
6. Evidence adduced by the plaintiff: Plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. The said witness relied on the following documents:
Ex. PW1/1 is the copy of the site plan;Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 5/11
Ex. PW1/2 is the copy of the receipt of rent deposited in DR application no. 59/2015;
Ex. PW1/3 (colly) are the electricity bills which were de exhibited;
Ex. PW1/4 is the legal notice dated 18.12.2017; Ex. PW1/5 is the postal registration receipts.
7. Despite grant of opportunity, the defendant failed to crossexamine PW1, compelling the court to proceed against the defendant ex parte vide order dated 23.08.2019. PW1 was discharged vide the said order and PE was closed vide order dated 17.10.2019 without examining any other witness. Cost was imposed on the defendant which was not paid by her and hence, the court proceeded to strike off the defence of the defendant vide order dated 14.02.2020.
8. Final arguments: Exparte final arguments were heard on behalf of the plaintiff wherein Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff navigated the attention of the court to the facts of the present case and the evidence adduced to support the claim put forth. Ld. Counsel argued that since the version of the plaintiff has not been rebutted by the defendant, the plaintiff has successfully proved his case and the preponderance of probabilities lie in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 6/119. Appreciation of Evidence and Reasons: I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, perused the record and considered the submissions advanced.
10. Taking the cumulative view of the facts expounded, the evidence spelt out and the arguments advanced, it becomes incumbent on this court to assay the law on the point of discharge of onus to prove and the axiom of the standard of proof in a civil dispute. A civil controversy is to be adjudged on the premise of preponderance of probabilities and the plaintiff, in order to render himself entitled to a decree in his favour, must discharge his burden to prove the fact which he asserts even if the defendants have not contested the matter. That said, let us scrutinise the potentiality of the claims put forth by the plaintiff. Issuewise findings are as under:
(a) Whether the last paid agreed rent of the suit property is Rs. 3,000/ per month?
11. The burden to prove the said issue rested on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended and has avouched during his testimony that the last paid rent of the property was Rs. 3,000/ per month. Conversely, the defendant neither impeached the said testimony nor led any evidence to controvert the claims put forth by the plaintiff. The averments of the plaintiff, as are mentioned in the plaint and tendered in evidence by way of an affidavit, are Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 7/11 uncontroverted as the defendant failed to diligently pursue her defence. There is nothing on record to throw doubt on the veracity of the said claim. The claims of the defendant were struck off. There is no reason brimming from the record to disregard the testimony of PW1. Thus, issue no. (a) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(b) Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent since December, 2013 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ per month?
12. The burden to prove the instant issue was upon the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has adduced oral evidence in support of his claim that the defendant has been in arrears of rent since December, 2013, there is not reason to discredit the said evidence or the averments of the plaintiff. At the cost of repetition, the defendant did not challenge the claim of the plaintiff by adducing affirmative evidence to support her pleadings. Hence, issue no. (b) is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 1,08,000/ at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ for the period between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017 ?
Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 8/1113. Since the plaintiff has established the fact that the defendant has been in arrears of rent, the plaintiff is adjudged to be entitled to recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/. Accordingly, the instant issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,08,000/, if so, at what rate and for what period?
14. Since it has been adjudged that the plaintiff is indeed entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/ from the defendant, equity mandates that the plaintiff be also awarded interest on the said sum. The plaintiff has been deprived of his due share of money by the defendant without any cogent reason for a considerable period. The plaintiff could have utilized the said money for his own use which he could not do as the defendant unreasonably failed to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to an interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the principal amount of Rs. 1,08,000/ from the date of filing of this suit till the date of its realisation. However, awarding of interest at the rate of 15% per annum is not warranted as the same is excessive.
(e) Whether the suit property, if let out in the open market will fetch of monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/?
Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 9/1115. The burden to prove the said issue was shouldered by the plaintiff. Although, the defendant did not adduce any evidence to controvert the claim that the property is likely to fetch rent of Rs. 15,000/ per month, the plaintiff has also not led any affirmative evidence to support the said claim. There is no basis on record on which it can be concluded that the property is likely to fetch Rs. 15,000/ per month as rent. Hence, the instant issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
(f) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages/mesne profit of Rs. 1,000/ as on the date of filing of the suit?
AND
(g) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period?
16. The burden to prove the instant issues rested on the plaintiff. Since the tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff and the decree of recovery of possession has already been passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 200/ per day from the date of filing of the instant suit till the date when the actual possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff. Issues no. 6 & 7 are accordingly adjudged in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 10/11(h) Relief
17. The issue qua relief is contingent upon decisions on material issues that is, issues no. (a) to (f) in the present suit. Since the said issues except issue no. (e) have been adjudged in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs:
A decree of recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,08,000/ from the defendant. Pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 1,08,000/ from the date of institution of the suit, that is, 09.01.2018 till date of its realisation.
A decree of damages/mesne profit at the rate of Rs.
200/ per day from the date of filing of the instant suit till the date of handing over of the possession thereof.
Parties are to bear their own costs.
18. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open
court today i.e. 02.01.2023
Paridhi Sharma
ACJCCJARC/South West
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Civil Suit No. 45/2018 Manjeet Singh versus Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar Page 11/11