Delhi District Court
Sh. Uttam Singh vs Mrs. Maheshweri M on 30 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K. AGRAWAL CIVIL
JUDGE01 ( WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI..
SCJ No. 61091616
Date of Institution : 30.01.2009
Date of reservation of judgment : 17.09.2016
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 30.09.2016
Sh. Uttam Singh
S/o Sh. Girja Prasad singh
R/o RZ23 A, Street No. 1 A
Kailash Puri, New Delhi45
.................Plaintiff
vs
1. Mrs. Maheshweri M.
W/o Sh. A.K. Dasan
R/o C5A/111 Janakpuri
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Surinder Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sakhir Chand
R/o A7, Chander Vihar
Janakpuri,New Delhi.
..............Defendants
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY AND
MESNE PROFIT/DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case as per plaintiff are that he had purchased one Flat bearing no. C5D/32A, Janakpuri, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property' ) from its previous owner i.e. defendant no.1, on 13.09.2007 vide registered Sale Deed and paid a SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 consideration of Rs.19,10,000/ to her. Defendant no.1 also handed over the peaceful possession of suit property to him before executing the Sale deed before SubregistrarII, Delhi. It is further stated by plaintiff that he had paid the above consideration amount towards suit property after getting the loan amount of ICICI Bank transferred in his name, as the loan was earlier taken by defendant no.1 against the suit property.
2. However after selling the suit property and executing registered documents in his favour, defendant no.1 requested him that since she was in the process of purchasing another house, so due to that reason, she alongwith her family may be permitted to stay in the suit property for one month and twenty days on rent for the period between 14.09.2007 to 03.11.2007 and also assured that she will vacate the suit property on 03.11.2007. On her repeated requests, he (plaintiff) agreed to give the suit property to her on rent @ Rs. 5,000/ p.m. exclusive of water and electricity charges and a registered rent agreement was also executed between him and defendant no.1 to this effect.
3. It is further stated by plaintiff that on 03.11.2007, defendant no.1 did not hand over possession of suit property to him then he himself went to the suit property for taking its possession but was shocked to know that defendant no.1 had left the suit property and some other person at the instance of defendant no.2, was living there. He requested defendant no.2 and that person to vacate the suit property but of no avail. Thereafter he lodged a complaint before P.S, Janakpuri on 13.01.2008 in this regard. Later defendant no.2 also filed a suit for specific performance against him, defendant no.1 and her husband.
4. Further states that defendant no.1 did not pay a single rupee towards the rent of Rs. 5,000/ p.m since the inception of tenancy inspite of his repeated requests. Hence she was liable to pay Rs. 5,000/ p.m as SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 rent for the period between 14.09.2007 till 03.11.2007 and was further liable to pay damages @ Rs. 15,000/ p.m., after expiry of her tenancy w.e.f. 04.11.2007 till date.
5. Further states that defendant no.2 is in unauthorized occupation of suit property after completion of tenancy on 04.11.2007, hence he is liable to pay Rs.15,000/ p.m towards damages and unauthorized user charges and also to hand over the possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiff preferred the present suit before this court.
6. Plaintiff has prayed for a decree of possession in his favour directing defendants to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of suit property to him. Further prayer is made for decree of recovery of rent amount and mesne profits i.e. Rs.8,820/ for the period between 14.09.2007 till 03.11.2007 from defendants and further directions to them to pay Rs. 15,000/ p.m from 04.11.2007 onwards, as mesne profits for unauthorized use and damages alongwith costs of the suit.
7. Pursuant to summons, defendant no.1 did not file her written statement but she filed an application cum reply dated 16.07.2009 wherein she practically admitted all the averments of plaintiff as has been made in the plaint. She also admitted her liability to pay the arrears of rent to plaintiff. However after participating in admission and denial of documents, later on she was proceeded exparte.
8. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 in which he contends that the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable as this court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff himself has admitted in letter dated 13.01.2008 addressed to SHO, P.S Janak Puri, Delhi that he had purchased the suit property for Rs. 32 lacs which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction.
SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17
9. It is further averred that the suit property has been purchased by him from defendant no.1 on 23.05.2006, for a consideration amount of Rs. 15 lacs and in this regard, defendant no.1 had executed an irrevocable GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Possession letter all dated 23.05.2006 in his favour. It was further told by defendant no.1 that Conveyance Deed would be executed in his (defendant no.2's) favour after making the payment of bank and she would also hand over the previous title deed/conveyance deed and other documents of the suit property at the time of execution and registration of sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. A suit for Specific Performance of contract bearing CS No. 707/08 was already filed by him against plaintiff and defendant no.1.
10. As per defendant no.2, on 23.05.2006, defendant no.1 had handed over the actual, vacant physical possession of suit property to him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore he is in lawful possession of suit property as he has already paid the sale consideration of suit property to defendant no.1. He further contends that as he is not an unauthorized occupant, hence plaintiff is not entitled to recover any rent or mesne profit from him.
11. Further states that after having purchased the suit property from defendant no.1, he has put his person on the suit property and suit property is in his (defendant no.2's) occupation and possession. Other averments made in the plaint were denied and prayer is made for dismissal of the suit. Replication was also filed by plaintiff wherein the averments made in written statement were denied and contents of plaint was re affirmed.
12. Vide Order dated 18.09.2012, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on the basis of pleadings of the parties : SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of arrears of rent @ Rs.8,820/ from 14.9.2007 to 03.11.2007 as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mesne profits @ 15,000/ from 04.11.2007 ? OPP.
4. Relief.
13. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has examined four witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and Sh. R.K. Thakur, Record Keeper from office of SubRegistrarII, Basai Dara Pur, Delhi as PW2, Ct. Bharat Singh from PS Janak Puri as PW3 and Sh. G. Raju Asst. Manager, Housing Loan Department, ICICI Bank as PW4. In their testimonies, the following documents were exhibited :
"Affidavit of PW1 is Ex. PW1/A wherein the averments of plaint have been reproduced, the copy of Icard is Ex. PW1/1, copy of registered Sale Deed is Ex. PW1/2, copy of account statement from 01.04.2000 to 14.01.2013 is Ex. PW1/3, registered Rent Agreement is Ex. PW1/4, Site plan is Ex. PW1/5, copy of complaint made to SHO, Janak Puri, dated 13.01.2008 is Ex. PW 1/6, Statement of loan account of plaintiff from 27.07.2014 to 19.05.2014 is Ex. PW4/1."
The witnesses were crossexamined and discharged and PE was closed.
14. On the other hand, defendant no.2 examined four witnesses namely, Sh. Devender Singh, Asst. Ahlmad of the court of Sh. D.K. Malhotra, Ld. ADJ, Delhi as D2W1, himself as D2W2 and Sh. Suneel SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 Mohan as D2W3 and Sh. Jarra Rizvi, Manager (legal) ICICI bank, NBCC, Lodi Road, Delhi as D2W4. In their testimonies, following documents were exhibited:
" GPA is Ex. D2W1/1, Agreement to sell as Ex. D2W1/ 2, receipt is Ex. D2W1/3, possession letter is Ex. D2W1/4, the affidavit of D2W2 is Ex. D2W2/A.copy of balance sheet dated 31.03.2007 is Mark A, Copy of ITR of defendant no.2 is Ex. D2W2/P1, copy of bank account statement is Ex. D2W2/P2, copy of another bank account statement is Ex. D2W2/P3, the affidavit of D2W3 is Ex. D2W3/A, copy of Adhar Card is Ex. D2W3/P1, the copies of loan application form, facility agreement, sanction letter, title search report dated 27.02.2006, property documents i.e. conveyance deed, agreement to sell and purchase and sale deed are Ex. D2W4/1 (colly.)."
All the witnesses were duly crossexamined and thereafter DE was closed.
15. Final arguments have been addressed on behalf of both parties which I have now duly considered. I have also perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession as prayed for ?
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The facts of present case need no reiteration, however in brief, the plaintiff is claiming title of suit property on the basis of registered Sale deed Ex. PW1/2 vide which he became owner of suit property after purchasing it from defendant no.1. He has further claimed SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 that defendant no.1 became his tenant after selling the property through registered Rent agreement Ex. PW1/4 and did not hand over possession to him after expiry of tenancy. He has further contended that defendant no.2 is in unauthorized possession of suit property after expiry of tenancy with defendant no.1. On the other hand, contention of defendant no.2 is that he is in possession of suit property as an owner vide documents such as GPA Ex. D2W1/1, Agreement to Sell Ex. D2W1/2, Receipt Ex. Ex. D2W1/3 and possession letter Ex. D2W1/4.
16. Perusal of the above documents relied by the respective parties shows that while plaintiff is relying on a registered Sale deed Ex. PW 1/2 which is a legally valid document of conveyance of title whereas documents Ex. D2W1/1 to Ex. D2W1/4 being relied by defendant no.2, are not valid deeds of conveyance in the eyes of law. Infact, no right flows to defendant no.2 on the basis of above documents as all the above documents are even unregistered documents.
17. It is settled law that an agreement purchaser who has entered into Agreement to sell and purchase with the seller cannot rely on an unregistered Agreement to sell even for the limited purposes of protecting his possession over an immovable property which he may have obtained under part performance of contract as per Section 53 (A) of Transfer of Property Act. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case MAC Associates vs S.P. Singh Chandel & Anr. 2013 IIIAD ( Delhi) 1 as follows: " Agreement to Sell does not vest any right in favour of a person to the possession of property. Even if a person is put in possession of property through an Agreement to Sell, he cannot protect his possession on the pretext of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 unless such an agreement is a registered document. Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, which has come into force with effect from 24th SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 September, 2001, reads as under: Documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immoveable property for purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, they shall have no effect for the purpose of the said Section 53A. Once a person cannot even protect the possession, which he is holding, in absence of an unregistered Agreement to Sell, then how such a person can seek possession on the basis of such a document. In Sunil Kapoor v/s Himmat Singh & Ors. 167 (2010) Delhi Law Times 806, a Single Judge of this Court has held thus "a mere agreement to sell of immovable property does not create any right in the property save the right to enforce the said agreement. Thus, even if the respondents/plaintiffs are found to have agreed to sell the property, the petitioner/defendant would not get any right to occupy that property as an agreement purchaser. This Court in Jiwan Das v/s Narain Das, AIR 1981 Delhi 291 has held that in fact no right inure to the agreement purchaser, not even after the passing of a decree for specific performance and till conveyance in accordance with law and in pursuance thereto is executed."
18. In view of the same, and also in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, it is clear that defendant no.2 cannot be considered to be the owner of the suit property through unregistered documents nor can he protect his possession on the basis of the same.
19. Furthermore, both plaintiff as well as defendant no.2 are claiming their respective title in the suit property through defendant no.1, who has been proceeded exparte in the present suit. So, there is no dispute regarding the fact that defendant no.1 was the previous owner of suit SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 property. Defendant no.1 has herself executed a valid Sale deed Ex. PW1/2 in favour of plaintiff as also admitted by her and the same has not been declared as void or unenforceable by any court of law till date. Defendant no.2 has also not filed any counter claim seeking declaration that Sale deed Ex. PW1/2 of plaintiff be declared as null and void despite him being aware of its existence and also the fact that it will adversely affect his rights in the suit property. This fact will go against defendant no.2.
20. An argument may also be raised that even plaintiff has not sought any declaration that documents Ex. D2W1/1 to Ex. D2W1/4 of defendant no.2, be also declared as null and void but has not done so even when possession of suit property was with defendant no.2. However in my considered opinion, plaintiff was not required to seek any such declaration since the documents of defendant no.2 do not confer any right, title or interest in the suit property per se and hence their existence does not affect the rights and title of plaintiff qua the suit property. The reason is obvious. Documents Ex. D2W1/1 to Ex. D2W1/4 if at all, only confer a right on defendant no.2 to get a proper sale deed executed in his favour from defendant no.1 through specific performance of contract or otherwise. In the case cited as above in MAC Associates (supra), another judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Sunil Kapoor v/s Himmat Singh & Ors. 167 (2010) Delhi Law Times 806, was referred where it was held that a mere Agreement to sell of immovable property does not create any right in the property save the right to enforce the said agreement.
21. This right to Specific Performance of Contract is available to defendant no.2 only against defendant no.1 and not against the plaintiff. Infact after execution of Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff, defendant no.1 is left with no right, title or interest in the suit property which she can legally SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 transfer to defendant no.2. Hence plaintiff is not required to seek any declaration qua the above documents of defendant no.2.
22. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention that admission/denial of documents by defendant no.1 had taken place on 24.05.2012 as she was then appearing before the court. In the said admission/denial proceedings, defendant no.1 though admitted her signatures on GPA Ex. D2W1/1, Agreement to Sell Ex. D2W1/2, Receipt Ex. D2W1/3 and Possession letter Ex. D2W1/4 but she denied the contents of those documents. She further denied her signatures on many corrections/overwritings which were made on the first page of Agreement to Sell Ex. D2W1/2. She has also denied her signatures on contents which are handwritten regarding payment of money as mentioned on receipt Ex. D2W1/3. However at the same time, she did admit her signatures on registered Sale deed Ex. PW1/ 2 and registered Rent agreement Ex. PW 1/4 which were executed by her in favour of plaintiff and thereby corroborated the version of plaintiff. Further the registration of above documents has been proved by PW2.
23. There is also a doubt on the consideration amount paid by defendant no.2. As stated above, at the time of admission/denial of documents, defendant no.1 denied the handwritten contents of Receipt Ex. D2W1/3 which was with regard to payment of consideration amount of Rs. 15,00,000/ allegedly paid to defendant no.1. In this regard, defendant no.2 admits that only Rs.10 lacs has been paid from his account. He however contended that another 4 lacs were paid on his behalf by his son inlaw Sh. Sutesh Kukreja from his account, the bank statement of which is exhibited as Ex. D2W2/P3 and the payment was made in the name of Nair A.K. and not in the name of defendant no.1. Another payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ was made through bearer cheque in the name of Nair A.K. from SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 the account of Sh. Sutesh Kukreja. There is a fair amount of doubt to treat the above payments of Rs. 5,00,000/ towards sale consideration of suit property as the name of both the persons making the payment and the person receiving the payment, are different. Further this fact ought to have been incorporated in the Agreement to Sell Ex. D2W1/2 and Receipt Ex. D2W1/3 itself but it is not mentioned so, and hence the said payment of Rs.5 lacs appears to be payments of some other transaction. The consideration amount which is mentioned on Agreement to Sell Ex. D2W1/2 has also been tampered/altered and defendant no.1 denied her signatures on the same as well as the contents thereof.
24. In view of above facts, the execution of Sale deed Ex. PW1/2 in favour of plaintiff stands duly proved but the documents as relied by defendant no.2 even though conferring no valid title upon him, remain unproved. Infact, defendant no.2 ought to have examined defendant no.1 in his evidence so as to prove due execution of the aforesaid documents and if necessary, also crossexamined her as she had only admitted her signatures on documents of defendant but denied the contents of the same and the over writings/corrections made on them.
25. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that during final arguments, counsel for defendant no.2 only addressed arguments on the aspect of improper valuation of suit by plaintiff and that of deficient court fees filed by him. It was contended that plaintiff has himself admitted in his complaint made before police Ex. PW 1/6 that the suit property was worth Rs.32 lacs. Hence this court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit as the property is worth more than Rs. 3 lacs which is the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Per contra it was submitted on behalf of plaintiff that he was not required to value the suit property on its market value and to pay ad valorum court fees as per Sec 7 (v) (e) but SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 rather the suit was properly valued on the basis of annual rent as it was a landlordtenant suit and the court fees was rightly paid as per provisions of Sec 7 (xi) (cc). He further submits that since defendant no.2 had entered into the suit property through defendant no.1, his status cannot be better than that of defendant no.1 who was admittedly a tenant of plaintiff having entered into registered rent agreement and this rent agreement was admitted by her in court. So, being a suit between landlord, tenant and her deemed subtenant, the plaintiff had correctly valued the suit and paid appropriate courtt fees. Reliance was placed on the ratio of judgment in Lajwanti and others vs Bahadur Singh and others 1981 AIR Del 67.
26. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that no issue has been framed on 18.09.2012 on the aspect of improper valuation of suit and payment of deficient court fees. Infact framing of separate issue on the above aspects was not pressed for by defendant no.2 on that day or even on any subsequent dates. Hence the issue ought to be deemed to have been waived by defendant no.2 and the court is not required to give any finding on the same. However for the sake of arguments, I will give a finding on the above issues as well.
27. Perusal of plaint reflects that plaintiff has alleged in para 14 that defendant no.2 was in unauthorized use of suit property whereas during his crossexamination on 02.08.2013, he alleged that defendant no.2 took forcible possession of suit property. Furthermore during cross examination of defendant no.2 as D2W2, suggestions have been given to him by counsel for plaintiff that he was a subtenant of defendant no.1. This does show that plaintiff himself was not sure about the exact status of defendant no.2 and in what capacity he entered into the suit property.
28. However defendant no.2 submits that he is in possession of SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 suit property since 23.05.2006, the date on which documents Ex. D2W1/1 to Ex. D2W1/4 were executed in his favour. At the same time, he could not produce any document such as utility bills or other documents, which can show that he did came into possession on 23.05.2006 itself. There is a Possession letter Ex. D2W1/4 executed in favour of defendant no.2 but this document is not of much help to defendant no.2 for the reason that defendant no.1 has denied the contents of all the documents allegedly executed in favour of defendant no.2. Furthermore evenif those documents are taken to be genuine, still it can be seen that in Agreement to Sell Ex. D2W1/2, it is mentioned that possession will be handed over only after execution of Sale deed which has not taken place till date. So there is contradiction in the documents of defendant no.2.
29. The contention of plaintiff that he obtained possession of suit property after execution of sale deed Ex. PW1/2 and that the defendant no.2 entered into the suit property after execution of Sale deed, is supported from the fact that defendant no.1 had admitted the execution of registered rent agreement Ex. PW1/4 whereby she acknowledged that she took possession of suit property on 14.09.2007 after execution of rent agreement in her favour and this date of is a later date as compared to the date of execution of alleged documents in favour of defendant no.2 which is 23.05.2006. Further PW4 also states that before disbursement of home loan, proper investigation and verification of ownership and possession of the property in question is done and that procedure was followed in this case and the original title documents are still lying with the bank.
30. Infact, in his crossexamination recorded on 07.03.2015 post lunch, defendant no.2 admitted that electricity bills of the suit property are raised in the name of plaintiff which further gives strength to the contention of plaintiff that he had obtained possession of suit property SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 after execution of Sale deed Ex. PW 1/2 and had handed over possession of suit property to defendant no.1 in the capacity of tenant through registered rent agreement Ex. PW1/4. Hence it is not proved that defendant no.2 was in possession of suit property since 23.05.2006. The above discussion is important so as to prove that defendant no.1 had already become tenant of plaintiff even before defendant no.2 entered into the suit property and so his status cannot be higher than that of the person from whom he obtained possession.
31. The documents Ex. D2W1/1 to Ex. D2W1/4 being unregistered documents, do not create any right, title or interest in the suit property as has already been discussed above. This is not a title suit where defendant no.2 can assert to have an adverse title over suit property as compared to plaintiff since the title of plaintiff is valid in the eyes of law but not that of defendant no.2, even prima facie. So the present suit was not required to be valued at the market value of suit property as happens in a title suit.
32. Further defendant no.2 also cannot be considered to be a trespasser in the suit property as he has admittedly entered into the suit property through defendant no.1. So even on that count, the suit was not required to be valued at the market price. To elaborate it further, defendant no.2 is relying on a GPA Ex. D2W1/1 which he contends to have been executed in his favour by defendant no.1. As per the said GPA, defendant no.2 is only an agent of defendant no.1 and as such he cannot claim to have a better title qua the suit property then the principal i.e. defendant no.1, whose own status in suit property was reduced to that of being a tenant of plaintiff after execution of rent agreement Ex. PW1/4. Hence the possession of defendant no.2 qua suit property is either that of an agent or representative of defendant no.1. Under such circumstances, the SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 contention of defendant no.2 that suit was required to be valued as per market value, cannot be sustained.
With these observations this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.2.
33. ISSUE No.2
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of arrears of rent @ Rs.8,820/ from 14.9.2007 to 03.11.2007 as prayed for ?
The onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. The registered rent agreement Ex. PW1/4 was admitted by defendant no.1, so the landlordtenant relationship is admitted. As far as arrears of rent is concerned, the period of which the same is being claimed, the possession of suit property was with defendant no.1, so only she is liable to pay arrears of rent to plaintiff. Defendant no.1 has been proceeded exparte and has not contested the suit of plaintiff. This will be deemed to be an implied admission of arrears on her part.
Hence this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
34. ISSUE No.3
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mesne profits @ 15,000/ from 04.11.2007 ?
The onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff.
As per Rent Agreement Ex. PW1/4, the tenancy with defendant no.1 expired on 03.11.2007 and possession was to be handed over on 04.11.2007. However defendant no.2 has been found to be in possession of the suit property from that date onwards. Hence defendant no.2 is liable to pay damages/mesne profits to the plaintiff for being in SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 unauthorized and unlawful possession since 04.11.2007. No evidence has been led by plaintiff to prove the amount of damages which he is claiming @ Rs. 15,000/ p.m. Admittedly the rent at which he let out the suit property to defendant no.1 was Rs. 5,000/ only. So damages/mesne profits cannot be awarded @ Rs.15,000/ which is excessive. However since the possession of defendant no.2 has been found to be unlawful, so plaintiff is entitled to an amount which is in excess of the said rent amount. Accordingly, I deem it fit and proper that damages @ Rs. 6,000/ p.m ( rent amount Rs. 5,000/ + 20 % of rent amount i.e. Rs. 1,000/) be awarded to plaintiff, which he is entitled to recover from defendant no.2 w.e.f 04.11.2007 till 31.10.2010. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover damages/mesne profits @ Rs.7,200/ p.m. w.e.f 01.11.2010 till 31.10.2013 with the increase of 20%. Lastly plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits/damages @ Rs. 8,500/ p.m. w.e.f 01.11.2013 till the date, possession of suit property is handed over to plaintiff.
This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.2.
35. Relief.
In view of my above mentioned observations and findings, the suit of plaintiff is decreed with direction to defendant no.2 to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of suit property i.e. C5D/32A, Janakpuri, New Delhi, to the plaintiff within one month of passing of the Decree sheet. Plaintiff is further entitled to arrears of rent of Rs. 8,820/ from 14.9.2007 to 03.11.2007, to be recovered from defendant no.1. Lastly plaintiff is also awarded mesne profits/damages to be recovered from SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17 defendant no.2 @ Rs. 6,000/ p.m w.e.f 04.11.2007 till 31.10.2010, thereafter @ Rs.7,200/ p.m. w.e.f 01.11.2010 till 31.10.2013 and lastly @ Rs. 8,500/ p.m. w.e.f 01.11.2013 till the date, the possession of suit property is handed over to plaintiff. Costs of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
Decree sheet shall however be prepared only after payment of additional court fees which the plaintiff is required to pay on the amount decreed in his favour as above.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court ( A.K. Agrawal) today on 30.09.2016 Civil Judge 01 ( West)/Delhi SCJ No. 61091616 Vakil Chand vs Saraswati 17/ 17