Delhi District Court
Suit No. 1380/ vs Smt. Hem Lata @ Hema on 1 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA, CIVIL JUDGE-06 (North)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique ID No. 02401C0393052006
Suit No. 1380/11
Smt. Shakuntala Devi
W/o Late Ram Pal Singh,
R/o L-5, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052. Plaintiff
Vs.
Smt. Hem Lata @ Hema
W/o Sh. Raju
R/o H. No. L-181-A, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052. Defendant
Date of Institution: 08.05.2006
Date of order reserved for Judgment: 17.10.2012
Date of Judgment: 01.11.2012
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 8,800/-
(EIGHT THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED ONLY)
JUDGMENT
CS No. 1380/11 Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Smt. Hemlata @ Hema Page No. 1 of 7
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the recovery of Rs. 8,800/- as arrears of rent along with interest @ 15% per annum till realization and also for costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is owner of property no. L-5, Shastri Nagar, Delhi and the defendant was tenant in respect of one room, common latrine on first floor in the said property at the rent of Rs. 800/- per month. That defendant was in habitual defaulter in making payment of rent and the plaintiff filed an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (a) & (d) of the DRC Act bearing E-130/2004 on 03.06.2004 in which the Hon'ble Court of ARC vide order dated 25.10.2004 directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff or deposit in court the entire arrears of rent @ 800/- per month w.e.f. March 2004 up to date within one month and continue to pay. That the defendant did not comply with the said order dated 25.10.2004 the plaintiff moved an application under Section 15(7) of the DRC Act dted 09.01.2005. However, the defendant vacated the aforesaid tenanted premises to the plaintiff on 20.05.2005 and made a statement in the Court on 01.02.2005. The counsel for the plaintiff withdrew aforesaid eviction petition, hence the petition of the plaintiff CS No. 1380/11 Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Smt. Hemlata @ Hema Page No. 2 of 7 was dismissed as withdrawn and satisfied vide order dated 01.02.2005. However, the defendant had neither deposited the arrears of rent w.e.f. April 2004 till the date of vacating the tenanted premises nor paid the same to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the defendant from 01.04.2004 till 20.01.2005 @ Rs. 800/- per month. It is submitted that the defendant withheld the legally recoverable rent, the defendant is liable to pay the same along with interest @ Rs. 15% per annum till the date of payment.
3. In WS filed by the defendant it is contended that the deceased husband of plaintiff took Rs. 30,000/- as security from the defendant which is refundable at the time of vacating the tenanted premises as per the verbal settlement which has not been refunded in date. That the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the tenanted premises. That the defendant did not take the benefit of section 15 (1) of the DRC Act and vacated the suit property but the plaintiff did not return the security amount of Rs. 30,000/-. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent from the defendant from 01.04.2004 till 20.01.2005 @ 800/- per month.
CS No. 1380/11 Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Smt. Hemlata @ Hema Page No. 3 of 7
4. In replication filed on behalf of plaintiff the averments of the WS have been denied and those of plaints have been reaffirmed vide order dated 01.10.2007 my ld. Predecessor framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff took the security of Rs.
30,000/- which was refundable and the same has not been refunded? OPD.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of amount, as claimed?OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, as claimed?OPP.
5. in order to substantiate her case the plaintiff appeared herself in the witness box as PW-1, her affidavit in evidence being Ex PW 1/A. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff are Ex PW 1/1 which are certified copies of the proceedings before the Court of ld. ARC. Defendant did not appear to cross-examine the plaintiff/ PW-1 and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.05.10 and PE was also closed on the said date.
6. I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff.
7. My issue wise disposal of the present suit is as under: CS No. 1380/11
Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Smt. Hemlata @ Hema Page No. 4 of 7 (A) Issue No. 1 Whether the plaintiff took the security of Rs. 30,000/- which was refundable and the same has not been refunded? OPD.
The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant but the defendant did not file any evidence and neither cross-examined PW-1 and was rather proceeded ex-parte. Hence, the defendant has failed to prove this issue. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant (B) Issue no. 2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of amount, as claimed?OPP.
The relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The plaintiff has claimed the arrears of rent w.e.f. April 2004 till 30.01.2005 @ Rs. 800/- per month on the basis of the statement made by the defendant in the proceedings in eviction petition before the ld. ARC on 01.02.2005. The plaintiff had thereafter withdrawn the eviction petition in view of the statement of the defendant. The plaintiff also relies upon the order dated 25.10.2004 of the ld. ARC in the said eviction petition no. E-130/04 wherein the ld. ARC had directed the respondent/ defendant to pay to the petitioner/ plaintiff CS No. 1380/11 Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Smt. Hemlata @ Hema Page No. 5 of 7 or deposit in the Court the entire arrears of rent @ Rs. 800/- per month wef March 2004 upto date within one month and continued to pay month by month. In support of the above, the plaintiff has filed the certified copies of the proceedings in the said eviction petition including the above said statement of the defendant dt. 01.02.2005 and order of the ld. ARC dt. 25.10.2004. There is no evidence filed by the defendant to the contrary except for the bare pleadings in which it has been denied that he has not paid the arrears of rent for the said period. The averments of the plaintiff have remained unrebutted/ uncontroverted. The plaintiff has thus proved on record that she is entitled to the arrears of rent @ Rs. 800/- w.e.f. 01.04.2004 till 20.01.2005 when the defendant admittedly vacated the tenanted premises. Thus the arrears of rent @ Rs. 800/- per month for the above said period i.e. nine months and twenty days works out to Rs. 7,733/- to which the plaintiff is entitled against the defendant. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
(C) Issue no. 3.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, as CS No. 1380/11 Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Smt. Hemlata @ Hema Page No. 6 of 7 claimed? OPP.
The onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 15% per annum stating that as the defendant withheld the legally recoverable rent hence the plaintiff was entitled to interest also. Since there is no rent agreement executed between the parties and the plaintiff has also not shown on what basis the said rate of 15% per annum has been claimed, therefore, interest is granted @ 6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs. 7,733/- pendente lite and future till realization.
RELIEF In view of the findings on the above discussed issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 7,733/- along with interest @ 6% per annum pendente lite and future till realization and also for costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (PRANJAL ANEJA)
on 01.11.2012. CIVIL JUDGE-06, NORTH,
THC/Delhi/01.11.2012.
CS No. 1380/11
Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Smt. Hemlata @ Hema Page No. 7 of 7