Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Mr. Abdul Basit vs Mohd. Yasin on 16 July, 2022

                     IN THE COURT OF ANURAG CHHABRA,
                               CIVILJUDGE­03,
                        TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No: 1928/2020


1.      MR. ABDUL BASIT

2.      MR. MOHD. ANWAR
        BOTH SONS OF
        LATE MR. ABDUL WASEY
        BOTH R/O 8945, NAYA MOHALLA,
        PUL BANGASH,
        GALI BRUSH WALI, DELHI­110006.
                                                           .....PLAINTIFFS
                                   Versus

1.      MOHD. YASIN

2.      MOHD. FAHEEM

3.      MOHD. WASEEM
        ALL S/O
        LATE MOHD. YUNUS
        ALL R/O OF
        6291, GROUND FLOOR,
        GALI BAINT WALI, BARA HINDU ROA,
        DELHI­110006
        ALSO AT:­
        6233, PAKKI GALI
        BARA HINDU RAO, DELHI­110006.
                                                           ...DEFENDANTS

                     SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 24,475/­
                 ( RUPEES TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR
                   HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE ONLY) BEING
                      ARREARS OF RENT ALONG WITH

CS No. 1928/20               ABDUL BASIT VS. MOHD. YASIN            Page 1 of 5
                                  INTEREST
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 23.12.2020
DATE OF DECISION               : 16.07.2022


                                    JUDGMENT

1. The present suit is a suit for recovery of Rs. 24,475/­ filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.

2. The factual matrix of the matter, as culled out from the bare perusal of the plaint is as follows:­ Plaintiffs are owners/landlord of property bearing no. 6291, Gali Baint Wali, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi­110006. The father of defendants namely Late Mohd. Yunus was the tenant in respect of one room on the ground floor of the said property by virtue of rent agreement dt. 10.08.2016. The premises was let out to the deceased father of defendants for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/­.

Deceased Mohd. Yunus had not paid the rent of the tenanted premises w.e.f 01.09.2018 inspite of the repeated demands and requests made by the plaintiffs and therefore, a legal demand notice dt. 27.03.2019 was sent to him to clear the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.2018 till 31.03.2019 @ Rs. 1500/­ per month. By virtue of the said notice the monthly rent was also enhanced by 10% and father of the defendants was called upon to pay the monthly rent at the enhanced rate i.e. Rs. 1650/­ per month excluding other charges w.e.f. 01.04.2019.

3. After about four months from the date of service of notice dt. 27.03.2019, father of defendants paid the rent upto 31.03.2019 to the plaintiffs vide rent receipt no. 256 dt. 14..07.2019 and he lastly made the paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 1650/­ for the month of February 2020 to the plaintiffs vide rent receipt no. 325 dt.

01.03.2020.

4. Mohd. Yunus expired on 29.04.2022 and after his death, defendants being the sons/legal heirs of deceased tenant are in the occupation and possession of the tenanted premises. Therefore, defendants are liable to pay the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. March 2020 till date i.e. December 2020 along with interest @ 15% p.a. to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sent a legal demand notice dt. 22.10.2020 to the defendants for the same. However, defendants did not clear the arrears of rent.

Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs with following prayers:­

(i) Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 24,475/­ (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five Only) along with pendente lite/future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization;

(ii) Award the cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

(iii) To pass such further relief/s as Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

5. Summons were duly served upon the defendants on 02.02.2021, but no WS was filed on behalf of defendants. Therefore, vide order dt. 24.09.2021, the defendants were proceeded Ex­parte.

6. Thereafter, plaintiffs led their Ex­parte evidence and examined plaintiff no. 1 as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW­ 1/A bearing signature at point A and B wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and also exhibited the following documents:

i) Ex. PW­1/1 (OSR) i.e. copy of relinquishment deed dt. 26.09.2013.

ii) Ex. PW­1/2 (OSR) i.e. copy of rent agreement dt. 10.08.2016.

iii) Ex. PW­1/3 (OSR) and Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) i.e. copy of rent receipt no. 325 dt. 01.03.2020 in Urdu and its English translation respectively.

iv) Ex. PW­1/5 i.e. legal notice dt. 27.03.2019.

v) Ex. PW­1/6 i.e. legal notice dt. 22.10.2020.

vi) Ex. PW­1/7 to Ex. PW1/9 i.e. postal receipts of legal notice.

vii) Ex. PW­1/10 to Ex. PW1/12 i.e. Tracking report.

viii) Ex. PW­1/13 i.e. certificate u/s 65­B Indian Evidence Act.

Thereafter, Ex­parte PE was closed and the matter was listed for Ex­parte final arguments.

7. Ex­parte final arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff were heard. Case file perused.

8. In Ex­parte suits, where defendant has not filed WS or he does not appear to contest the suit, the plaintiff as well as the Court proceeds on the basis that there was no real opposition/defence to put forth. Hence, the plaintiff is only required to prove a prima facie case, which in my considered view has been successfully done by the plaintiffs in this case.

9. The plaintiffs have duly proved Ex. PW1/1 i.e. copy of relinquishment deed dt. 26.09.2013 which shows that suit property was relinquished in their favour. Ex. PW1/2 i.e. copy of rent agreement dt. 10.08.2016 shows that rent agreement was executed between the father of defendants and the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have also duly proved Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 which show that father of defendants lastly paid the rent of Rs. 1650/­ per month to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have claimed arrears of rent for the period 31.12.2020 at the rate of Rs. 1650/­ per month totaling to Rs. 16500/­. Plaintiffs have claimed interest at @ 15% p.a., however, same appears to be exorbitant. Interest @ 9 % p.a. would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. On the other hand, despite the notice of the suit in hand, defendants have not appeared before the court to dispute the plaintiff's case. As such, the entire evidence led by the plaintiffs goes unrebutted and since defendants have chosen to remain absent, therefore, there is no reason for this court to disbelieve plaintiff's version.

RELIEF

10. Hence, the suit in hand is hereby decreed ex­parte and plaintiffs are hereby held entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 16500/­ as arrears of rent for the period 01.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 @ of Rs. 1650/­ per month and legal notice charges ie. Rs. 5500/­ along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from March 2020 till its final realization, from the defendant. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.

Announced in the open court
on 16.07.2022                               (ANURAG CHHABRA)
                                          CIVIL JUDGE­03/C/THC
                                                            DELHI

Note:­This judgment contains of 5 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.

(ANURAG CHHABRA) CIVIL JUDGE­03/C/THC DELHI CS No. 1928/20 ABDUL BASIT VS. MOHD. YASIN Page 5 of 5