Delhi District Court
Sushma vs Asit Kumar Kar on 31 May, 2025
CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA MADAAN, CIVIL JUDGE-02,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, DELHI
Case No. : CS SCJ 803/2024
CNR No. : DLST03-001222-2024
IN THE MATTER OF :
SUSHMA
S/o Sh. S.P. Yadav
R/o C-132B, JVTS Garden,
Chhattarpur Extension
New Delhi -110074. ...........Plaintiff
Versus
ASIT KUMAR KAR
R/o Flat NCB-94,
Naraina Ring Road,
Naraina, New Delhi .........Defendant
****
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF THE ARREARS OF RENT AND ALSO THE DAMAGES ALONGWITH INTEREST PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
**** Date of Institution of suit : 04.09.2024 Date of Reserving of Judgment : 23.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 31.05.2025 **** EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of sum of Rs.2,58,500/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
Digitally
(Deeksha Madaan), signed by
deeksha
Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha madaan
Saket Courts, New Delhi madaan Date:
31.05.2025 (Page 1 of 9) 2025.05.31
17:28:14
+0530
CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR
PLAINT
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that in April 2021, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to lease out the suit property bearing flat no. C-132B, JVTS Garden, Chhattarpur Extension, Flat No. 1, New Delhi for residential purpose. Thereafter, a rent agreement was executed between the parties for a period of 11 months starting from April 2021 for a monthly rent of Rs.13,000/- excluding maintenance and electricity charges for the tenancy period of 11 months qua property bearing flat at C-132b, JVTS Garden, Chhatarpur Ext., Flat No. 1, New Delhi, for the residential purpose.
3. That pursuant to expiry of the aforesaid lease agreement dated 14.03.2022, the defendant again approached the plaintiff and requested that the rent agreement may be renewed for a period of another 11 months and on request of defendant, the plaintiff again entered into agreement for the tenancy period for next 11 months which was effected from the 15.04.2023 with rent of Rs.13,000/- excluding 1000/- per month for parking, maintenance and electricity charges in respect of the rented premises. same premises.
4. That towards the end of the 11 months period i.e. with effect from 14.03.2024, the defendant became statutory tenant on account of expiry of the rent agreement on 14.03.2024 and remained living in the suit property at a rent of Rs. 13,000/- pm. deeksha (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Saket Courts, New Delhi Digitally signed by 31.05.2025 (Page 2 ofdeeksha
9) madaan Date: 2025.05.31 17:28:24 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR
5. That the plaintiff has served a demand letter dated 04.08.2023 to comply with the contractual obligations and pay the outstanding rent and other charges of Rs.1,01,200/- and as discussed with the defendant, the total due and outstanding amount on defendant was Rs. 81,000/- out of total outstanding up to July 2023.
6. That the settlement of accounts has been written down and both the parties have put their respective signatures on the paper of settlement but the defendant did not comply with the terms and conditions and on the contrary, he was giving threats to implicate the plaintiff in false and frivolous cases. In the meantime, the plaintiff was in need of the suit property as plaintiff is a practising lawyer and needs to start her law office in her flat and accordingly, she sent a notice on 19.10.2023 through speed post for vacating the rented premises within a time period of 30 days i.e latest by 19.10.2023. The said legal notice was not received by the defendant.
7. That, aggrieved by the behavior of the defendant, the plaintiff on 19.10.2023 sent a legal notice through her counsel again requesting the defendant to peacefully vacate the suit property within 30 days i.e. latest by 19.10.2023 and also requested him to pay towards the arrears of maintenance and parking charges as per agreement clause. Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2025.05.31 17:28:29 (Deeksha Madaan), +0530 Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 31.05.2025 (Page 3 of 9) CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR
8. That on 02.12.2023, the plaintiff again sent a legal notice through her email to the defendant under section 106 of Transfer of property Act, 1882, directing the defendant to peacefully vacate the Suit property within 30 days of the receipt of the Notice and also make the payment of all the arrears of rent with the interest of 18% which is outstanding till date as defendant has been residing in the suit property since 2021. However, the defendant acted in a negligent manner and the defendant has vacated the suit property and left without paying the arrears of rent and dues which are as follows: arrears of rent Rs. 1,02,500/-, damages & Maintenance Rs.45,000/-, mental harassment Rs. 1,00,000/-, charges for the legal notice Rs. 11000/- and thus, total (excluding Interest) Rs. 2,58,500/-.
9. The defendant suddenly vacated the house without prior notice and making any payment and in this regard, the plaintiff had also lodged a written complaint at the local police station on 29.02.2024 and the plaintiff sent a WhatsApp message on 29.02.2024 reminding and demanding the defendant for payment of her legitimate dues but there is no response till date. Hence, the present suit.
APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT
10.After institution of the suit, summons were issued to the defendant and the defendant did not appear despite service nor (Deeksha Madaan), Digitally Civil Judge-02(South) signed by Saket Courts, New Delhi deeksha 31.05.2025 deeksha (Page 4 of 9) madaan madaan Date:
2025.05.31 17:28:34 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR WS has been filed despite opportunity and the defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.12.2024.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
11.Plaintiff, in support of her case, has placed on record her affidavit vide Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon documents i.e. copy of rent agreement dated 25.08.2023 MARK A, copy of legal demand notice dated 04.08.2023 MARK B, copy of paper of settlement MARK C, copy of legal demand notice sent on 19.10.2023 MARK D, copy of email dated 02.12.2023 MARK E, copy of Whatsapp message dated 24.02.2024 MARK F, copy of complaint to SHO Mehrauli dated 29.02.2024 MARK G. The plaintiff also placed on record her additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/B and relied upon site plan Ex.PW1/1, Certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/2, complaint for lost case file made to SHO PS Saket bearing DD No. 102A dated 22.03.2025 is Ex.PW1/3.
12. No other witness has been examined by the plaintiff and PE stood closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13.I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff who argued as per the pleadings contained in the plaint and the arguments are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date:
2025.05.31 Civil Judge-02(South) 17:28:38 Saket Courts, New Delhi +0530 31.05.2025 (Page 5 of 9) CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR DECISION AND REASONING THEREOF
14.PW1, in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, reiterated the version of the plaint and thereby supported the pleadings made in the plaint. The plaintiff/PW1 failed to produce the original lease deed dated 25.08.2023 or even the lease deed which was purportedly entered in April 2021. She filed her additional evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/B wherein she sought to rely upon NCR of the missing original documents filed in PS Saket which is dated 22.03.2025 and is Ex.PW1/3. In the said NCR which is Ex.PW1/3, it is stated by the plaintiff that she had lost her case file which contained important legal documents related to this court on 04.03.2025. However, ordersheet dated 04.03.2025 shows that on the said date, the plaintiff submitted before the court that she is praying for an adjournment for tendering of evidence on the ground that all the original documents required to be tendered in evidence have not been brought by her in the court. Further, the time of incident is not noted and it is further noted in the complaint that she realized the loss while shifting documents, traveling or handling the case, whereas states the place of loss is stated as Saket Court to her house. Hence, reliance upon Ex.PW1/3 cannot be made in view of the discrepancy between her submissions as made before the court on 04.03.2025 and as contained in Ex.PW1/3. Ex.PW1/3 seems like an afterthought only to ensure admissibility of the photocopies of the documents. Hence, reliance upon the secondary evidence i.e. Digitally (Deeksha Madaan), signed by Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha Saket Courts, New Delhi deeksha madaan 31.05.2025 madaan Date:
(Page 6 of 9) 2025.05.31 17:28:43 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR the copy of lease agreement MARK A cannot be made. Similarly, reliance upon other documents which have been tendered in evidence which are also photocopies can also be not made. Even if, the plaintiff was not able to produce the original lease deed, she could have produced proof of payment of rent during the tenancy. The same was also not done.
15.The plaintiff also failed to specify the exact months for which the rent remained unpaid to her by the defendant. She has stated in her plaint that there are outstanding rent and other charges of Rs. 1,02,500/- whereas, she states thereafter that the total due and outstanding amount was settled to be Rs. 81,000/- and she has relied upon a hand written settlement between the parties which is stated to be signed by both plaintiff and the defendant, however, even that has not been produced in original and is MARK C and signatures of both the parties are not visible in such document. Further, even though reliance upon said document MARK C is made by the plaintiff to state that the outstanding dues were settled to be Rs. 81,000/- towards the rent arrears, however, in the plaint again a different sum is claimed towards the arrears of rent being Rs. 1,02,500/-.
16.In absence of all these evidences, it cannot be conclusively stated that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant for renting out her property and that the defendant had certain arrears of rent to be paid to the plaintiff and the Digitally (Deeksha Madaan), signed by Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha Saket Courts, New Delhi deeksha madaan 31.05.2025 (Page madaan 7 of 9) Date:
2025.05.31 17:28:47 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR plaintiff is now entitled to recover such arrears.
17.Even other facts in the plaint and evidence are all jumbled up.
In para 4 of her evidence by way of affidavit, the plaintiff states that the defendant approached her for entering into a renewed rent agreement post expiry of the previous lease deed on 14.03.2022 and as per request of the defendant, she entered into a rent agreement dated 25.08.2023 which was to start w.e.f 15.04.2023. Thus, the period from 14.03.s022 till 15.04.2023 is not explained. Further, it is stated that the rent agreement dated 25.08.2023 was entered for a period of 11 months starting with effect from 15.04.2023 and was effectuating on 14.03.2024 whereas, thereafter it is stated that the defendant became a statutory tenant upon the expiry of the rent agreement on 14.03.2024 and remained living in the suit property on the same rent but in the very next line states that the defendant left the premises on 29.02.2024. Thus, it is unclear as to how come if the defendant became a statutory tenant post expiry of the rent agreement on 14.03.2024, had he already left on 29.02.2024. Hence, none of such facts are making any sense as the dates are all jumbled up.
18.It is a settled law that a plaintiff has to stand on its own and discharge its burden and the necessity of proof cannot be dispensed with. It was also held in Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad, (2015) 5 SCC 588, that the absence of defendant to contest the Digitally (Deeksha Madaan), signed by Civil Judge-02(South) deeksha Saket Courts, New Delhi deeksha madaan (Pagemadaan Date:
31.05.2025 8 of 9) 2025.05.31 17:28:52 +0530 CS. No. SCJ 803/24 SUSHMA VS. ASIT KUMAR KAR suit does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree.
19.The plaintiff cannot be relieved of the burden to prove her case only on the ground that the opposite party has been proceeded exparte. The plaintiff has, thus, failed to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and is not entitled to any decree.
RELIEF
20.Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (DEEKSHA MADAAN) 31.05.2025 Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi (This judgment contains 9 pages and each page has been signed by me.) deeksha madaan Digitally signed by deeksha madaan Date: 2025.05.31 17:28:57 +0530 (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 31.05.2025 (Page 9 of 9)