Delhi District Court
Charles Stephen vs Sh. Rama Kant Sachdeva on 4 December, 2007
1
In the court of Sh. Gaurav Rao: Civil Judge: Tis Hazari
Courts: Delhi.
Suit no. 77/02
In the matter of
Charles Stephen
S/o Lt. Sh. Stephen Naurataran
3741, Ram Nath Patwa Street
Paharganj, New Delhi. .........Plaintiff.
Versus
Sh. Rama Kant Sachdeva
New Delhi Sports Emporium
Shop no. 23, Municipal Market
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
And also at:
3741, Ram Nath Patwa Street
Ground Floor, Paharganj, New Delhi.
Suit for permanent injunction.
Date of institution: 11.09.2000
Date on which reserved for judgment : 01.12.2007.
Date of decision: 04.12.2007.
Judgment (Ex-parte)
1 The present suit for permanent injunction has been filed by
the plaintiff against the defendant.
2 The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is the owner/landlord
2
of the property no. 3741, Gali Ram Nath Patwa, Paharganj, New Delhi.
The portion on the ground floor of the said property comprising of one
room was let out to the defendant for godown purposes @ monthly
rent of Rs. 100/- exclusive of other charges as per agreement dated
12.07.1979 The defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff. The
defendant failed to pay of rent of the said tenanted premises w.e.f.
January 1997 onwards @ Rs. 100/- per month despite repeated
requests. The plaintiff served a legal notice dated 12.04.1999 in this
regard but, the defendant neither replied nor complied the same.
Therefore, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent which was
pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and another suit for eviction
on account of non payment of arrears of rent, which was pending
before Ld. ARC, Delhi. The defendant in order to harass the plaintiff,
without obtaining any permission, started making structural changes in
the said premises with the sole object to convert the said ground floor
to a shop. Plaintiff requested the defendant to desist from making any
additions, alternations or any other structural alternations or changes in
the said premises, the defendant did not pay heed to the request of
the plaintiff. On 05.09.2000 the defendant openly told that he would
make the necessary alternations in the said premises. Hence, the
present suit.
3 On being served with summons for settlement of issues, the
defendant filed his written statement. In the written statement a
preliminary objection was taken that the present suit was filed without
any cause of action. A further preliminary objection was taken that
proper court fee has not been filed.
4 On merits, it is admitted that defendant is tenant of a room
(Godown) since 20.07.1979 @ monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month as
per the agreement dated 12.07.1979. It is denied that defendant
failed to pay the arrears of rent of the said tenanted premises. It is
denied that defendant in order to harass the plaintiff, without
obtaining any permission, stated making structural changes in the
3
tenanted premises. Defendant has therefore, prayed for the dismissal
of the suit.
5 In the replication, the contents of the written statement are
denied and those of the plaint are reaffirmed.
6 From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by my ld. Predecessor.
1.Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Relief.
7 Thereafter, on non appearance of the defendant, he was proceeded Ex-parte by my Ld. Predecessor.
8 Thereafter, plaintiff led his Ex-parte evidence and examined himself as PW1. The witness deposed in terms of the plaint and maked on certain documents to prove his case.
9 I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and perused the record very carefully. The evidence of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. The defendant filed the WS but did not appear thereafter and hence was proceeded Ex-parte. The defendant has not denied the ownership of the plaintiff, nor has the defendant denied the fact that he is a tenant in respect of the suit property. Neither the rate of rent has been denied. So the claim of the ownership/landlord have not been disputed/denied by the defendant in his WS.
10 The defendant as a tenant has no right to carry on any construction/alternation in the suit premises without the permission/consent of the owner. In view of the same, the defendant is restrained from making any additions, alternations or any structural 4 changes in the room on ground floor of the property bearing no. 3741, Gali Ram Nath Patwa, Paharganj, New Delhi as shown red in site plan and also from encroaching upon any additional open space in front of the said godown in any manner. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Gaurav Rao) court on 04.12.2007. Civil Judge/Delhi.