Delhi District Court
M/S. Seth Properties vs Sh. Ajay Singh on 10 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CENTRAL08, DELHI.
Unique I.D. No. 02401C0208562003
SUIT No. 366/09/03
M/s. Seth Properties,
(A registered Partnership Firm)
Acting through its Partner
Shri Naresh Seth,
Having its office at:
L23/1 to 23/6, Connaught Place,
New Delhi110001. PLAINTIFF
VS.
1. Sh. Ajay Singh
2. Sh. Abhay Singh
Both sons of Sh. Om Prakash,
C/o L10, Connaught Place,
New Delhi110001.
3. M/s. Delhi Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd.
Through its Chairman/Director,
Having its registered office at:
18A, DDA S.C.O. Complex,
Defence Colony, Delhi.
And Branch/Retail Outlet at:
L10, Connaught Place,
New Delhi. DEFENDANTS.
SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 1 of 24
Date of institution of the suit : 06.09.2003
Date of reserving judgment : 24.02.2011
Date of judgment : 10.03.2011
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, a partnership firm, has filed the present suit for recovery of possession and for recovery of damages/mesne profits, wherein, it has been stated that the plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the suit premises bearing No. L10, Cannaught Place, New Delhi and the same was let out to defendant No. 1 & 2 vide Rent Deed dated 7.6.1991 at an initial monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ and the same has been increased from time to time and the last paid rent, at the time of termination of the tenancy, was Rs. 1,331/ per month, excluding the electricity and water charges.
2. It is further stated that vide Rent Deed dated 7.6.1991, the defendant No. 1 & 2 were permitted to sublet the suit premises and accordingly, they have let out a part of the suit premises to the defendant No. 3.
3. It is further stated that out of the total area measuring 1554.62 sq. ft., an area of 1071 sq. ft. on the ground floor, as shown in green colour in the site plan, is in occupation of defendant No. 3, SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 2 of 24 whereas, the remaining portion measuring 483.62 sq. ft. on the mezzanine floor of the suit premises is in occupation of defendant No. 1 & 2 and the same has been shown in red colour in the site plan.
4. It is further stated that the tenancy of the defendants was a month to month tenancy which starts from 7th day of each English Calender month and expires on 6th day of succeeding English Calender Month and after subletting to defendant No. 3, the defendant No. 1 & 2 are charging more than Rs. 40,000/ as rent from defendant No. 3 towards use and occupation charges of the portion in possession of defendant No. 3. It is further stated that vide legal notice dated 26.5.2003, the tenancy of the defendant No. 1 & 2 and subtenancy of the defendant No. 3 were terminated w.e.f. 6.7.2003 and since 7.7.2003, the defendants are illegal and unauthorised occupants of the suit premises, for which, the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages @ Rs. 150/ per sq. ft. per month from the defendants alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum. It is further stated that despite service of the legal notice dated 26.5.2003 and termination of tenancy, the defendants have not handed over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and have not paid any damages/mesne profits to it and have not even replied the legal notice and hence, the present suit. SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 3 of 24
5. All the defendants were duly served with the summons of the suit and defendant No. 3 filed its written statement but the defendant No. 1 & 2 have not filed their written statements despite ample opportunities. During the trial, Ld. Predecessor of this court had framed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the present suit and the said issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff vide orders dated 18.5.2007 and the application of defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also dismissed vide said order. The said order was challenged by defendant No. 3 before the Hon'ble High Court vide CRP No. 127/2007 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.7.2009 and another opportunity was granted to the defendant No. 1 & 2 to file their written statements within two weeks from 17.7.2009. But, the defendant No. 1 & 2 had not complied even the said order and none had appeared for the defendant No. 1 & 2 and therefore, vide orders dated 16.8.2009, they were proceeded exparte.
6. In its written statement, the defendant No. 3 has taken various objections and has stated that the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control Act. It is also objected that the present suit has not been valued properly for the SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 4 of 24 purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. It is also stated that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 as the defendant No.3 had taken the suit premises from M/s Milani Co., for running the liquor vend under a licence agreement dated 25.3.83. It is further stated that vide Rent Deed dated 7.6.91, executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 & 2, M/s Milani Co. had relinquished all its rights in the suit premises and M/s Milani Company had handed over the physical possession of the suit premises to the defendant No.1 & 2 and thereafter, the defendant No.1 & 2 had stepped into the shoes of M/s. Milani Co. and they inducted the defendant No. 3 in the suit premises and the defendant No.3 was paying use and occupation charges to defendant No.1 & 2, which were being earlier paid by defendant No.3 to M/s Milani Co. It is further stated that defendant No.3 is not paying any subletting charges to the tune of Rs.40,000/ per month to defendant No. 1 & 2, but, it is stated that an amount @ 11.95 % of the gross profit of defendant No.3 is being paid to defendant No.1 & 2 as rent compensation.
7. Replication to the written statement of defendant No. 3 was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff, wherein, the plaintiff has denied the contents of the written statement and has reiterated and SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 5 of 24 reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, this court had framed the following issues on 26.7.2010, as under: 1 Whether the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD3.
2 Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD3.
3 Whether the present suit has not been verified
properly? If so, its effect? OPD3.
4 Whether the present suit has not been valued properly
for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD3 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession in respect of the suit property, as claimed in the plaint? OPP.
6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,66,500/ as damages, as claimed in the plaint?
OPP.
7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mesne
profits, as claimed in the plaint? OPP.
8 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest from
the defendant? If so, at what rate and for which
period? OPP.
SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 6 of 24
9 Relief.
9. During the trial, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Gyan Chand, the care taker of the plaintiff firm, as PW1, Sh. Dinesh Srivastav, Head Assistant from the office of House Tax Department, NDMC as PW2 and Ms. Sundri Satyamani, Manager(Finance) of defendant No. 3 as PW3. On the other hand, the defendant No. 3 has examined Sh. R.K. Batra, Manager (Liquor Zone) of defendant No. 3 as DW1.
10. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Sh. Yogender Vashishth Adv. for the plaintiff and Sh. Devender Chaudhary Adv. for defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 & 2 had remained exparte during the entire trial and none had address the final arguments on their behalf.
11. I have carefully gone through the case file and I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments, addressed by the Ld. counsels for the parties and my findings on the various issues are, as under: ISSUE NO. 1.
1 Whether the present suit is barred under the provisions
of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD3.
SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 7 of 24
12. The onus of proof of this issue was on the defendant No. 3 and in support of its contentions, the Ld. counsel for defendant No. 3 has argued that the last paid rent by defendant No. 1 & 2 was Rs. 1,331/ per month and therefore, the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control Act. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in view of the judgments of our own High Court in case titled as P.S. Jain Co. Ltd Vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., reported as 1997(40) DRJ(DB) and subsequent judgment of our own High Court in case titled as Atma Ram Properties(P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Pal Properties(India) Pvt. Ltd. & Others reported as 2001 IV AD(DELHI) 512, the present suit is not barred under the provisions of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, as the rent of the suit premises, payable by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 & 2 was around Rs. 40,000/ per month, which was much above the amount of Rs. 3500/.
13. Perusal of the case file shows that the suit property was initially let out by the plaintiff to M/s. Milani Co. and vide Rent Deed dated 7.6.1991, executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 & 2, M/s. Milani Co. had handed over the physical possession of the suit premises to defendant No. 1 & 2 and M/s Milani Company had SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 8 of 24 relinquished its rights in the suit premises in favour of the defendant No. 1 & 2 and thereafter, defendant No. 1 & 2 had stepped into the shoes of M/s. Milani Company. These facts have not been denied by the plaintiff. It is further observed that the defendant No. 3 has admitted that defendant No. 3 was paying rent compensation to defendant No. 1 & 2 @ 11.95 % of the gross profit from the sale of the liquor by defendant No. 3, from the suit premises. DW1 R.K. Batra, Manager (Liquor Zone), of defendant No. 3 has reiterated and reaffirmed these facts in his affidavit Ex. DW1/A. This witness has admitted in his crossexamination that the defendant No. 3 had paid the user charges of the premises to defendant No. 1 & 2 on account of use of the suit premises and the suit premises is exclusively in control of defendant No. 3. He has further stated that different portion of the suit premises was in possession of defendant No. 1 & 2. This witness has further admitted that the rent compensation @ 11.95 % was subsequently increased to 12.5 %. This witness has further admitted that this amount was being paid by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 & 2 as commission for the use and occupation of the portion of the suit premises in its possession and this amount had never been below the amount of Rs. 3,500/ per month.
SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 9 of 24
14. Perusal of the record further shows that similar objection was taken by defendant No. 3 in its application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the said application was disposed off by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 18.5.2007 and the judgments cited by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff were also considered by the Ld. Predecessor of this court and the following observations were recorded, while disposing off the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the present suit and the application of defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, as under: "Insofar as the maintainability of the present suit is concerned, the attention of this court has drawn to the judgments titled as Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs. Pal Properties (India) Pvt. Ltd & Ors, 91 (2001) Delhi Law Times 438, Brahmanand Kejriwal Vs. Kushal Kishore Aggarwal, 90 (2001) Delhi Law Times 49 (DB) and Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd Vs. M/s P.S. Jain Company Ltd. & Ors, 57 (1995) Delhi Law Times 131. In these judgments, the Hon'ble High Court has held that in the event the rent payable by the sub tenant to the tenant is more than Rs. 3500/, the premises would be outside the scope of Delhi Rent Control Act, even if the rent payable by tenant to the principal landlord is less than Rs. 3500/ per month. Hence, it is held that the present suit as framed is maintainable. Thus, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is also liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed." SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 10 of 24
15. This order was challenged by defendant No. 3 before the Hon'ble High Court in CRP No. 127/2007 but the said revision petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.7.2009. The said order has not been challenged by defendant No. 3, till date and therefore, the same has attained finality.
16. In view of the previous observations of this court vide order dated 18.5.2007 and the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 17.7.2009, passed in CRP No. 127/2007 and the fact that the rent compensation paid by the defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 & 2 had never remained below the amount of Rs. 3500/, I am of the considered opinion that the present suit is not barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 3.
ISSUE NO. 2.
2 Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD3.
17. The onus of proof of this issue also lies upon the defendant No. 3 but the defendant No. 3 has not led any evidence, in this regard. During the final arguments, Ld. counsel for the defendant SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 11 of 24 No. 3 has not pressed his objection, in this regard.
18. Perusal of the file shows that PW1, the care taker of the plaintiff firm has categorically stated in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that the suit premises was owned by the plaintiff firm and the same was let out to defendant No. 1 & 2 vide Rent Deed dated 7.6.1991. The said Rent Deed has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/2 and execution of this Rend Deed has been admitted by the defendant No. 3. It is also stated by this witness that the entire suit premises bearing No. L10, Connaught Place, New Delhi measuring about 1554.62 sq. ft. comprising an area of 1071 sq. ft. on the ground floor and an area measuring 483.63 sq. ft. on the mezzanine floor was let out to defendant No. 1 & 2 and the site plaint has been proved by this witness as Ex. PW1/3. Even, the authenticity and correctness of the said site plan has not been challenged. This witness has further stated that in May, 2003, the defendant No. 3 was the subtenant of defendant No. 1 & 2 and their tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff vide legal notice dated 26.5.2003. The legal notice has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/5. The postal receipts have been proved on record as Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/10 and the UPC Certificate has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/6. ^The original returned SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 12 of 24 registered AD envelopes are also placed on record and have been proved as Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12. Perusal of these documents indicates that all these documents bear the correct address of the defendants and there is no evidence on record in rebuttal. It is pertinent to mention here, that defendant No. 1 & 2 failed to file their written statement despite opportunities and despite grant of opportunity by the Hon'ble High Court and they have chosen to remain exparte during the entire trial. The testimony of this witness, in this regard, has remained unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted. This witness has categorically stated that despite termination of the tenancy of the defendants, the defendants have not vacated the suit premises and they are illegal occupants of the suit premises. In these circumstances, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 3.
3 Whether the present suit has not been verified
properly? If so, its effect? OPD3.
19. The onus of proof of this issue also lies upon the defendant No. 3. But, the defendant No. 3 has not led any evidence even in this regard and even, during the final arguments, the SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 13 of 24 Ld. counsel for the defendant No. 3 has not pressed this objection.
20. Perusal of the record shows that the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by Sh. Naresh Seth, one of the partners of the plaintiff firm and the same has been duly verified in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 4.
4 Whether the present suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD3.
21. Onus of proof of this issue also lies upon defendant No. 3 and in support of its contentions, DW1 Sh. R.K. Batra, Manager, (Liquor Zone), of defendant No. 3 has stated that the rent of the shop in dispute was Rs. 1,331/ per month excluding the water and electricity charges and it has never jumped beyond Rs. 1,331/ per month and the same was being paid by defendant No. 1 & 2 to the plaintiff. But, this witness has further stated that defendant No. 3 was a subtenant of defendant No. 1 & 2 and he was paying rent compensation at the rate of 11.95 % of the gross profits from the sale of liqor to the defendant No. 1 & 2, in view of the agreement dated 25.3.1983. In his crossexamination, this witness has admitted that SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 14 of 24 defendant No. 1 & 2 were having no participation in the business of defendant No. 3 and the defendant No. 3 has paid the user charges of the suit premises to defendant No. 1 & 2. He has further admitted that the commission was subsequently increased from 11.95 % to 12.5 %. He has also volunteered that this amount of commission was for use and occupation of the portion of the suit premises and this amount had never been below the amount of Rs. 3,500/.
22. The PW1 has categorically stated that the defendant No. 1 & 2 have been charging at least Rs. 40,000/ per month as rent from defendant No. 3, as defendant No. 1 & 2 have subletted a portion of the suit premises to the defendant No. 3. During the trial, PW3 Ms. Sundri Satyamani has also placed on record the details of payments made by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 & 2 w.e.f. April, 1991 to September, 2010 and the same has been proved on record as Ex. PW 3/1.
23. Perusal of Ex. PW3/1 shows that the defendant No. 3 has paid huge amounts to the defendant No. 1 & 2, as rent compensation. This commission has been regularly paid by the defendant No. 3 to the defendant No. 1 & 2 and was never been below an amount of Rs. 3,500/ per month. The plaintiff has assessed its SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 15 of 24 relief for possession at a total rental value of the suit premises at Rs. 41,331/ per month i.e. at Rs. 4,95,972/, on which, ad valorem court fees of Rs. 7,224/ has been paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further valued its relief of recovery of damages for the period w.e.f. 7.7.2003 to 7.9.2003 @ Rs. 150/ per sq. ft. per month at a total amount of Rs. 4,66,500/ , on which, ad valorem court fees of Rs. 6,931/ has been paid and the same is correct as per law and therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 5.
5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession in respect of the suit property, as claimed in the plaint? OPP.
24. Onus of proof of this issue lies upon the plaintiff and in support of its contentions, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Sh. Gyan Chand, the caretaker of the plaintiff firm, who has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. This witness has categorically stated that the present suit has been signed, verified and instituted by Sh. Naresh Seth(now deceased), one of the SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 16 of 24 partners of the plaintiff firm and he has personally seen him signing and writing in the regular course of his employment. He has further stated that the other partners of the firm have authorised him to depose in the court by way of Special Power of Attorney dated 10.9.2007, in his favour. A copy of the power of attorney in favour of this witness has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/1. This witness has also proved the Rent Deed dated 7.6.1991 as Ex. PW1/2 and the site plan as Ex. PW1/3. The legal notice dated 26.5.2003 has been proved as Ex. PW1/5 and the UPC Certificate and postal receipts have been proved as Ex. PW1/6 to Ex. PW1/10. The original returned registered AD envelopes have been proved on record as Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12. This witness has categorically stated that despite termination of their tenancy, the defendants have illegally occupied the suit premises. Perusal of his crossexamination shows that no material discrepancy has come on record, in his cross examination, to discard the testimony of this witness. Furthermore, no crossexamination was done by the counsel for the defendant No.1 & 2 as the defendant No. 1 & 2 have not filed any written statement and have preferred not to crossexamine this witness. In these circumstances, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 17 of 24 against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 6 & 7.
6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,66,500/ as damages, as claimed in the plaint?
OPP.
7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mesne
profits, as claimed in the plaint? OPP.
25. The onus of proof of both these issues lies upon the plaintiff and since, both these issues are interconnected, I deem it appropriate to decide both these issues together. In support of its contentions, the PW1 has categorically stated that the entire suit premises bearing No. L10, Connaught Place, New Delhi, was having an area of approximately, 1554.62 sq. ft. and the ground floor of the suit premises, measuring 1071 sq. ft. was in use and occupation of defendant No. 3, whereas, the remaining area of 48362 sq. ft on the mezzanine floor of the suit premises was in possession of defendant No. 1 & 2. These portions have been shown in site plan Ex. PW1/3 in green colour and red colour respectively. This witness has categorically stated that the tenancy of defendant No.1 & 2 and sub tenancy of defendant No. 3 was terminated w.e.f. 7.7.2003 vide legal SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 18 of 24 notice dated 26.5.2003. It is further stated by this witness that on the basis of information received from the office of NDMC, the plaintiff has come to know that defendant No. 1 & 2 were charging at least Rs. 40,000/ per month as rent from the defendant No. 3 towards the use and occupation of the portion shown in green colour in the site plan. This witness has also placed on record a copy of the assessment order No. 607/99 dated 21.12.99 which confirms that the portion in possession of defendant No. 3 was having a rateable value of Rs. 40,000/ per month. This assessment order was proved on record by PW2 who had produced the entire original record of house tax assessment before the court. The testimonies of PW1 Sh. Gyan Chand and PW2 Sh. Dinesh Srivastav have remained unrebutted and unchallenged, in this regard.
26. PW1 Sh. Gyan Chand has further deposed that the defendants are the illegal occupants in the suit premises after 7.7.2003, for which they are jointly and severally liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises at a rate of at least Rs. 150 per sq. ft. per month. However, no documentary evidence has come on record to show that the suit premises can fetch a rent of about Rs. 150/ per sq. ft. per SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 19 of 24 month w.e.f. July, 2003, till date. However, PW1 has deposed in his affidavit that the rental value of the suit premises is not less than Rs. 600/ per sq. ft. per month.
27. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that it is the admitted case of defendant No. 3 that the defendant No. 3 was paying the rent compensation to defendant No. 1 & 2 @ 11.95 % of the gross profit and the same was increased subsequently to 12.5 % of the gross profit. The details of payments made by the defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 & 2 have been proved on record as Ex. PW3/1. These documents pertain to the record maintained by defendant No. 3 regarding the payments made by defendant No. 3 to the defendant No. 1 & 2 as rent compensation for the portion of the suit premises in their possession.
28 Perusal of the record shows that there is no evidence on record regarding the rateable value or the market rent for the portion in possession of defendant No. 1 & 2. Perusal of the order Ex. PW 1/4 indicates that the ground floor of the suit premises was assessed to house tax and its rateable value was taken at Rs. 40,000/ per month, in the year 19992000, but there is no mention of the mezzanine floor SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 20 of 24 of the suit premises in this order. The assessment order No. 607/99 dated 21.12.99 pertains to the assessment year 19992000 and in the considered opinion of this court, there must be some increase in the rateable value of the suit premises till the year 2003. Keeping in view the increase in the rateable value at 10 % of Rs. 40,000/, this court considers that the rateable value for the ground floor of the suit premises can be safely taken at Rs. 44,000/ per month. Since, there is no evidence on record to assess the rateable value or the market rent in respect of the mezzanine floor of the suit premises, this court deems it appropriate that the market rent for the mezzanine floor is also assessed at the same rate, according to its area. The rental value of the ground floor measuring 1071 sq. ft. is assessed at Rs. 44,000/ per month in May, 2003 and therefore, the market rental value for the mezzanine floor can very well be assessed accordingly by calculating it as per its area. When the rateable value of the ground floor is taken at Rs. 44,000/ per month, it comes to a rent of about Rs. 41/ per sq. ft. According to this rate, the rental value for the mezzanine floor having an area of 483.62 sq. ft. comes to Rs. 19,844/ per month. Both these issues are decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 21 of 24 and against the defendants and it is, hereby, held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages/mesne profits from the defendants for the entire suit premises at total rate of Rs. 63,844/ per month w.e.f. 7.7.2003 till the handing over of the vacant physical possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 8.
8 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest from
the defendant? If so, at what rate and for which
period? OPP.
29 The onus of proof of this issue lies upon the plaintiff.
But, in support of its contentions, the plaintiff has not led any evidence, in this regard. However, it has been stated by PW1 Sh. Gyan Chand that the plaintiff is also entitled to claim interest on the rent @ 24 % per annum. But, in the considered opinion of this court, the same is on a very higher side and keeping in view the prevailing bank interest and the transactions between the parties and the provisions of Section 34 of The CPC, this court is of the considered opinion that the interest on the damages/mesne profits @ 10 % per annum may also be granted to the plaintiff. This issue is decided, SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 22 of 24 accordingly, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. RELIEF.
30 In view of my findings on the various issues, as discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is, hereby, decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against all the defendants and a decree for possession in respect of the entire suit premises bearing No. L10, Connaught Place, New Delhi110001, as specifically shown in site plan Ex. PW1/3, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against all the defendants. All the defendants shall hand over the vacant physical possession to the plaintiff within 30 days of this order. The suit of the plaintiff is also decreed for damages/mesne profits @ Rs.63,844/ per month w.e.f. 7.7.2003 against all the defendants. However, the liability of defendant No. 3 is restricted to payment of Rs. 44,000/ per month w.e.f. 7.7.2003 and it shall also be entitled for adjustment of the total amount paid by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 & 2., as mentioned in document Ex. PW3/1, for which, the defendant No. 1 & 2 shall make the payment to the plaintiff. The costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against all the defendants. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly, after filing the SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 23 of 24 deficient court fees by the plaintiff. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court, on this 10th day of March, 2011.
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE CENTRAL08, DELHI.
N.
SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 24 of 24
SUIT No. 366/09/03
10.03.2011
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Sh. Devender Chaudhary Adv. for the defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 & 2 are already exparte.
Separate judgment has been passed, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
BRIJESH KUMAR GARG ADJ, CENTRAL08, DELHI/10.03.2011 SUIT No. 366/09/03 Page 25 of 24