Delhi District Court
Mayank Gupta vs Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd on 28 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHITRANSHI ARORA , CIVIL
JUDGE-03, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CS SCJ No. 1223/2023
MAYANK GUPTA VS. CLOUD SECURITY PVT. LTD. AND
OTHERS.
In the matter of:-
Sh. Mayank Gupta
S/o Sh. Narender Pal Gupta
R/o H. No. 1511, Sector-21
Gurugram, Haryana-122016.
Present Address :
H. No. 4, Officers' Colony
Near Sessions House, Nuh
District Nuh, Haryana-122107.
..........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd.
House No. 270, Village Paprawat
South-West District, Delhi-110043.
Through its Director : Smt. Sarla Devi
2. Smt. Sarla Devi
W/o Sh. Diwan Singh
Director of Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd.
House No. 270, Village Paprawat,
South-West District, Delhi-11043.
3. Sh. Diwan Singh
S/o Sh. Phool Singh
House No. 270, Village Paprawat,
South-West District, Delhi-11043.
........Defendants
CS SCJ 1223/23 Mayank Gupta Vs. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd. And others
Page no. 1of 8
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
Date of institution of the suit : 03.10.2023
Judgment reserved on : 18.11.2024
Date of judgment : 28.11.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 62,960/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) along with interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT:-
2. Plaintiff is the owner of the shop/office/premises comprising of 29 sq. yards, 1043 sq. feet area, upper ground floor, main Palam-Gurugram Road, Village Dundahera, District Gurugram, Haryana by virtue of Transfer Deed dated 25.06.2020 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gurugram, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property').
3. Defendant no.1 is a private limited Company engaged in the business of providing security guards and in the year 2016-17, the plaintiff's grand father late Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal, inducted the defendant no. 1 as a tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 8000/- excluding electricity charges to be paid separately @ Rs. 200/- per month subject to increase as per the consumption charges. No rent agreement was executed between the CS SCJ 1223/23 Mayank Gupta Vs. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd. And others Page no. 2of 8 parties.
4. The defendants were chronic defaulters and always avoided paying the rent on one pretext or the other and have not paid the rent and electricity charges for the period from October, 2020 to March 2021. On persistent demands made by the plaintiff's grandfather, the defendant no. 2 issued a post dated cheque bearing no. 170701 dated 05.03.2021 for Rs. 32,800/- as rent for the months of October, 2022 to January, 2021. However, the cheque was returned back dishonored with the remarks 'insufficient' funds. When the defendants were informed about the same, they promised to make the payment within a week but did not make any payment.
5. In the first week of April, 2021, the defendants vacated the suit property and shifted to an unknown place, without clearing the payment for the arrears of rent and electricity. The plaintiff grand father made several calls to Defendant no. 3 calling upon him to make the payment, however, he stopped picking the calls and never made the payment.
6. On 20.09.2021, the plaintiff's grandfather expired.
On 26.10.2021, the plaintiff's father made telephone call and sent whatsapp messages to the defendant no. 3 demanding the rent and electricity charges. The defendant no. 3 requested to send the bank account number. However, even after sending the bank account details, the CS SCJ 1223/23 Mayank Gupta Vs. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd. And others Page no. 3of 8 defendant no. 3 did not make the payment.
7. On 08.04.2022, the plaintiff served a legal demand notice dated 07.04.2022, upon defendant no. 1 & 3 demanding the payment of Rs. 49,200/- towards rent and electricity charges for the period from 01.10.2020 to 31.03.2021 with interest, but in vain. The defendants are liable to pay Rs. 49,200/- alongwith interest of Rs. 13,760/- from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2023 @ 12 % pa, the total being Rs. 62,960/-. The defendants are also liable to pay pendentelite and future interest till the recovery of decretal amount.
8. In the background of these facts, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the defendant.
SUMMONS :-
9. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 03.10.2023.
The defendants was served with summons through speed post on 04.11.2023. Despite service, none appeared for the defendants and no written statement was filed. Therefore, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.02.2024.
10. The matter was then listed for plaintiff evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE : -
11. In ex-parte plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff deposed as PW-1, vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as CS SCJ 1223/23 Mayank Gupta Vs. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd. And others Page no. 4of 8 Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and B, wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He relied upon following documents: -
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1 Copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR)
2 Copy of the Transfer Ex.PW1/2 (OSR)
Deed dated 25.06.2020
3 Copy of electricity bill Ex.PW1/3
dated 06.06.2023
4 Copy of cheque dated Ex.PW1/4 (OSR)
05.03.2021
5 Copy of whatsapp chat Ex.PW1/5
dated 26.10.2021, (Colly.)
10.11.2021 and
30.11.2021
6 Copy of legal demand Ex.PW1/6
notice dated 07.04.2022, (Colly.)
postal receipts, Tracking
report.
7. Certificate under Section Ex.PW1/7 65-B, Indian Evidence (already on Act is now exhibited as record).
12. Vide separate statement of the plaintiff, the plaintiff evidence was closed on 20.09.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
13. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
CS SCJ 1223/23 Mayank Gupta Vs. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd. And others Page no. 5of 8
14. I have heard the submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record meticulously.
FINDINGS: -
15. The plaintiff has claimed recovery of Rs. 62,960/-
on the ground that there are arrears of rent and electricity charges amounting to Rs. 49,200/-, due to be paid by the defendants as the defendant no. 1 was inducted as a tenant in the suit property by his late grand father in the year 2016 - 2017. He has asserted that the defendants vacated the suit property in April, 2021 without making the payment of the outstanding amount and despite multiple requests and reminders by his grand father and by his father, the defendants have not made the payment of the outstanding amount.
16. To prove his case, the plaintiff has placed on record, the copy of transfer deed dated 25.06.2020, Ex.PW-1/2 executed in his favour by way of which, he claims to have become the owner of the suit property, copy of the electricity bill dated 06.06.2023, Ex. PW-1/3, copy of the cheque dated 05.03.2021, issued by the defendant no. 1 signed by defendant no. 2 for an amount of Rs. 32,800/- in favour of the plaintiffs grandfather, copy of whatsapp chat dated 26.10.2021 and 30.11.2021, wherein a message has been sent to the defendant no. 3 giving him the details of the account number of the plaintiff and asking him to make CS SCJ 1223/23 Mayank Gupta Vs. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd. And others Page no. 6of 8 the payment of the rent amount. Further, the plaintiff has also placed on record copy of the legal notice alongwith the tracking report Ex. PW-1/6 to show that despite service of legal notice upon Defendant no. 1 , the defendants have not made the payment of the outstanding amount.
17. Perusal of all the documents filed by the plaintiff though show that he is in possession of the suit property and is the owner of the same, there is nothing on record to show that the defendant no. 1 was infact a tenant in the suit property, inducted by the plaintiff's grandfather. The plaintiff has asserted that there was no rent agreement that was executed between the parties. However, the plaintiff could have filed other evidences to show the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the absence of proof of such relationship, the foundation of the case on the basis of which, the plaintiff has sought the relief of recovery, of arrears of rent and electricity charges, remains unproved.
18. The whatsapp chat relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.
PW-1/5 is also not admissible since, there is no supporting certificate as required under the law of admissibility of electronic evidences. The certificate u/s 65 B of IE Act Ex. PW-1/7 relied upon by the plaintiff does not find any mention about the whatsapp chat and is only in support of the tracking reports filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there is no document other than a self serving legal demand notice, which can substantiate CS SCJ 1223/23 Mayank Gupta Vs. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd. And others Page no. 7of 8 the claim of the plaintiff for recovery sought in the present suit. The legal demand notice could have assisted the case of the plaintiff, if there was other substantive piece of evidence to prove the case of the plaintiff and it could have corroborated the plaintiff's case, however, the legal demand notice, single handedly does not prove the case of the plaintiff.
19. In view of the above discussion and on the basis of documents relied upon by the plaintiff, I have no hesitation in holding that plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed.
20. No order as to cost.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
CHITRANSHI
CHITRANSHI ARORA
ARORA Date:
2024.11.28
16:09:09
+0530
Pronounced in the open court (Chitranshi Arora)
Today on 28.11.2024 CJ-03, South-West,
Dwarka Court, ND
CS SCJ 1223/23 Mayank Gupta Vs. Cloud Security Pvt. Ltd. And others
Page no. 8of 8