Delhi District Court
Aman Kapoor vs Deepansh Kalra on 19 December, 2024
CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA MADAAN, CIVIL
JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, DELHI
Case No. : CS SCJ 129/2021
CNR No. : DLST03-000193-2021
IN THE MATTER OF :
AMAN KAPOOR
R/o flat No. B-602,
Mihir Apartments, Plot no. 7,
Wazirabad Road, Sector-52,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122003 ...............Plaintiff
Versus
DEEPANSH KALRA
R/o B-4/200, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi ..........Defendant
****
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,80,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH
EIGHTY THOUSAND ONLY) ALONG WITH PENDENTE LITE
AND FUTURE INTEREST
****
Date of Institution : 02.02.2021
Date of Reserving of Judgment : 25.11.2024
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 19.12.2024
****
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 1 of 22) Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan Date: madaan 2024.12.20 16:50:14 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
PLAINT
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendant were not known to each other and the flat was taken on lease by the plaintiff through a broker.
3. That the plaintiff, vide a lease and license agreement dated 29.01.2019, took on lease a house bearing Flat No. A-203, 2 nd Floor, Plot-24, Bairwa bharti CGHS Ltd, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi at Rs.34,000/- per month from the defendant who claimed to be its owner. That as per the agreement, the duration of the term of tenancy was for a period of 11 months stating from 01.02.2019 to 31.12.2019 and as per the clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff had paid a security deposit of Rs. 68,000/- by way of cheque bearing no. 20924 dated 29.01.2019 drawn on ICICI Bank. Further, the plaintiff had also deposited post dated cheques with the defendant as security against monthly rent which he has not returned till date.
4. That soon after the occupying the premises, the plaintiff informed the defendant about severe dampness in the flat to which the defendant assured that he will get the same rectified (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 2 of 22) Digitally signed deeksha by deeksha madaan madaan 16:50:18 Date: 2024.12.20 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA at his own cost. However, despite assurances, no repair work was undertaken by defendant. That in the month of July 2019, the plaintiff informed the defendant of termite growing in the premises. That the defendant promised to get the termite treatment done, however, despite assurances, nothing was done by him.
5. That since no action was taken to repair the premises by the defendant, the plaster in the premises started falling and the flat had a perpetual damp smell and air which also lead to termite attack. That on 21.07.2019, father of the plaintiff namely Kishore Kumar Kapoor informed the defendant over WhatsApp that in case necessary repairs will not be carried out by the defendant, the plaintiff here will be bound to vacate the premises. That even upon the intimation, only false assurances were made by the defendant to undertake repair work at the premises.
6. That since no repair work was carried out by defendant, the plaintiff as per clause 14 of the Agreement served upon the defendant one month's notice dated 31.07.2019 for vacating the flat.
Digitally
signed by
deeksha
deeksha madaan
madaan Date:
2024.12.20
16:50:23
+0530
(Deeksha Madaan),
Civil Judge-02(South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
19.12.2024 (Page 3 of 22)
CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA
7. That on 31.08.2019, the plaintiff after clearing all the dues vacated the premises and handed over the possession to the defendant. However, the defendant did not return the security deposit amount in terms of clause 4 of the Lease Agreement dated 21.09.2019. That before entering into the lease, the defendant did not disclose to the plaintiff that the flat had a serious dampness problem and thus he had cheated the plaintiff by covering the dampness with fresh paint.
8. That the plaintiff lived in the flat alongwith his family comprising of senior citizen parents, wife and an infant daughter and unmarried brother and the dampness in the flat had become a serious health concern for the plaintiff and his family especially his infant daughter and senior citizen parents.
9. That the plaintiff had no reason to terminate the lease and vacate the flat merely in 6 months after lease except for the reason of acute dampness and termite problem in the flat. Hence, the present suit.
10. Since the defendant did not refund the security amount, the plaintiff was left with no other open but to lodge a complaint against the defendant with PS Dwarka Sector-17, New Delhi. The plaintiff further issued a legal notice dated 07.11.2019 to (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 4 of 22) Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2024.12.20 16:50:29 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA the defendant to pay him the security amount alongwith 18% interest from 31.08.2019 till the actual date of payment.
11.The defendant vide letter dated 22.11.2019 replied to the legal notice but till date not refunded the security amount of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has suffered losses due to the defendants dishonest actions and he had to vacate the premises prematurely and shift to another house and in the process has incurred costs comprising of brokerage of Rs. 42,000/- paid by him for the new house taken on rent by him and Rs. 20,000/-
incurred towards shifting charges.
12.The plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also claimed a sum of Rs. 68,000/- as security amount deposited by him with the defendant with a rate of interest of 24% per annum as the defendant is business man and used the security deposit for commercial purposes.
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
13.Written Statement was filed by defendant wherein the defendant has taken several preliminary objections. It is averred by the defendant that the plaintiff has not come to the court Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), Date:
madaan 2024.12.20 Civil Judge-02(South) 16:50:34 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 5 of 22) CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA with clean hands and has concealed true facts from the court.
That the averment made by the plaintiff in the plaint is false frivolous hence liable to be dismissed. That the plaintiff filed this suit to harass the defendant and there is no cause of action arises in the present ease, hence the plaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. That as per clause 9 of the Leave and License Agreement, the plaintiff has agreed that he has seen before occupying the said premises that all the sanitary and electric fittings and fixtures are in good working condition and are satisfied that nothing is broken or missing and the Plaintiff on vacating the rented premises shall restore them, in the same condition subject to normal wear and tear.
15.That as per clause 10 of the Leave and License Agreement "That the licensed premises shall only be used by the Licensee for residential purpose. The licensee shall maintain the said premises in its existing condition and damage, if any, caused to the said premises, the same shall be repaired by the Licensee at its own cost subject to normal wear and tear".
16.That as per clause 11 of the Leave and License Agreement "That the licensee shall not make or permit to do any alteration (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 6 of 22) Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2024.12.20 16:50:40 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA or addition to the construction or arrangements (internal or external) to the Licensed premises without previous consent in writing from the Licensor."
17.That the plaintiff had breached the contract of the agreement by not taking the prior consent for by creating a separate washing area and installing the taps and pipes for the washing machine.
It has been stated that all the wash-rooms were handed over in the damaged condition with a broken tiles, broken walls, and plaintiff had also damaged the toilet seats.
18.That as per Para 11 of the Plaint, it has been admitted by the plaintiff that before entering into the lease, the Plaintiff was shown the Flat by the Defendant and no defects were visible from outside as the Flat looked freshly painted after the same was vacated by the previous tenant.
19.That the defendant had paid the sum of Rs 1,60,000/- on repairs which was caused to Defendant due to Plaintiff's act. That even after the security amount being adjusted, plaintiff is liable to pay additional Rs 92,000/-. That the plaintiff dishonestly claims the amount whereas it is prima facie shown that the plaintiff had damaged, destroyed and broken the wash-room tiles, toilets Digitally signed deeksha by deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), madaan 16:50:45 Date: 2024.12.20 Civil Judge-02(South) +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 7 of 22) CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA and modular kitchen boards and other expensive articles which amount to the loss of the defendant.
REPLICATION
20. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff stating that the written Statement filed by the Defendant is liable to be struck off from the record as the same has been filed after the delay of 30 days from the date of service of the summons on him.
21. That vide order dated 30.05.2022, this Hon'ble Court records that the Defendant was served the plaint via whatsapp on 17.08.2021. That Plaintiff has also filed an Affidavit of service, showing that the Defendant was served a physical copy of the Plaint via speed post which was duly delivered at Defendant's Safdarjung Enclave address on 18.05.2022.
22.That admittedly the Defendant had filed its Written Statement on 28.09.2022, after a delay of more than 1 year. Therefore, the same cannot be taken on record and further, the averments on merits were traversed and the contents of the plaint were reiterated by way of replication.
Digitally
signed by
deeksha
deeksha madaan
(Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date:
Civil Judge-02(South) 2024.12.20
16:50:49
+0530
Saket Courts, New Delhi
19.12.2024 (Page 8 of 22)
CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA
ISSUES
23.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial on 05.07.2023:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of an amount of Rs. 68,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant?OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization?OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cost of Rs.62,000/-
due to premature vacation of flat by the defendant?OPP.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment? OPP.
(5) Relief.
The defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC which was allowed by the court vide order dated 11.12.2023 and additional issues were framed:
Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date:
2024.12.20 Civil Judge-02(South) 16:50:54 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 9 of 22) CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA (5) Whether the defendant suffered loss on account of alleged alterations made by the plaintiff in breach of the lease and license agreement? OPD.
(6) Whether the plaintiff is not liable to receive refund of security deposit on account of breach of conditions mentioned in the lease and license agreement? OPD.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF
24.Plaintiff, in support of his case, has placed on record his affidavit in evidence vide Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Sl. Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents No.
1. Ex.PW1/1 (colly) Agreement dated 29.01.2019
2. Ex.PW1/2 Copy of notice dated 31.07.2019 for vacating the flat
3. MARK A (colly) Pictures of the flat taken at the relevant time showing dampness and termites
4. MARK B Whatsapp conversations
5. MARK C Screenshot of receipt dated 31.07.2019
6. Ex.PW1/6 Copy of legal notice dated 07.11.2019
7. Ex.PW1/7 Reply of the defendant dated (Admitted) 22.11.2019 (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 10 of 22) Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2024.12.20 16:50:59 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA
8. Mark D (CollY) Police complaint against defendant to SHO, Dwarka and DCP Dwarka dated 25.09.2019
25.PW1/plaintiff was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant and discharged.
26.The plaintiff has also examined his father Sh. Kishore Kumar as PW2 who has deposed that he was residing with his son at the suit property and they had to leave the property as there was a termite infection. He had informed the defendant on Whatsapp regarding the termite infection and dampness. He sent him reminders on 01.08.2019, 14.07.2019 and on further dates. However, they did not receive any response from the defendant. PW2 sent the Whatsapp messages from his mobile phone and the details of the same is mentioned in the Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW2/A (Colly 3 pages). The coloured screenshots of the Whatsapp conversations are Ex.PW2/1 (Colly 2 pages). He had also taken photographs of the dampness on the walls from his mobile phone and the photographs are Ex.PW2/2 (Colly 4 pages). PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant and discharged.
Digitally signed by deekshadeeksha madaan (Deeksha Madaan), madaan Date:
2024.12.20 16:51:03 +0530 Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 11 of 22) CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA
27.Thereafter, evidence on behalf of plaintiff was closed on 29.02.2024.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT
28.Defendant examined himself as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.DW1/A and relied upon copy of bank statement MARK X (which was objected to as not filed with WS. The objection is sustained), copy of lease and license agreement already Ex.PW1/1 and copy of reply to legal notice dated 22.11.20219 already Ex.PW1/7. DW1 was cross- examined by Counsel for plaintiff.
29.Defendant also examined Sh. Sunil Gupta as DW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW2/A. He has stated that he is the employee of the defendant. He has stated that when the plumber was sent by the defendant, it was communicated to the Defendant that the plaintiff had wrongly created the washing areas and wrongly drilled the main water pipeline. He stated that when the plaintiff informed about the termite to the defendant, he (DW2) personally visited with the technician when the technician informed that plaintiff's furniture was having termite due to which it had affected the defendant's flat. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by deeksha(Deeksha Madaan), deeksha madaan
Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Date:
2024.12.20
16:51:07 +0530
Saket Courts, New Delhi
19.12.2024 (Page 12 of 22)
CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA
30.Thereafter, evidence of the defendant was closed on 27.08.2024 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
31.Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties, who argued as per their pleadings and the same is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of both the sides containing the mention of the judgments relied upon by them respectively. The same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND REASONS
32.All the issues being interconnected are being dealt with jointly.
33.The onus to prove issues no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 was on the plaintiff.
Therefore, it has to be seen from the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff as to whether the plaintiff has been successful in discharging the onus placed upon him.
34.To establish his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and relied upon documentary evidence as detailed earlier. The plaintiff has been able to prove that he had complained to the defendant regarding the dampness and termite infection and the defendant in his WS has admitted in parawise reply to the (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 13 of 22) Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan Date: madaan 2024.12.20 16:51:12 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA plaint, in his reply to contents of para no. 9 of the plaint specifically, that he was reported by the plaintiff regarding the dampness problem and that as soon as he was reported about the dampness problem, he had sent a plumber to the flat and as far as the termite infestation is concerned, the plaintiff has answered in his cross examination that his father has notified the owner regarding the same. The plaintiff has also gotten examined his father as PW2 who has stated that he had informed the defendant on WhatsApp on 01.08.2019, 14.07.2019 and on further dates through his mobile phone and the screenshots of Whatsapp conversations were exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 (colly 2 page) which are duly supported with a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW2/A (colly 3 pages). He has further stated that he also taken photographs of the dampness on the walls from his mobile phone and the same are Ex.PW2/2 (colly 4 pages). Thus, the plaintiff has been sufficiently able to prove that the premises was having the issue of dampness and termite infestation and the same was reported to the defendant.
35.The defendant has taken the defence that the dampness had been caused due to the plaintiff constructing a washing area in the suit premises by not taking prior consent from him and that the termite were also caused due to plaintiff's furniture. It is (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 14 of 22) Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2024.12.20 16:51:17 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA pertinent to note that in his WS and evidence by way of affidavit, the defendant states that he had sent a plumber for the dampness as soon as he was informed by the plaintiff regarding the dampness who informed him that the plaintiff had wrongly created a washing area and wrongly drilled the main pipeline, however, in his cross-examination has stated that the plaintiff did not complain to him regarding dampness in wall, which is contrary to his averments in the WS as well as statements in his evidence by way of affidavit.
36. Further, he stated in his cross-examination that he came to know that plaintiff had overused the washing area, done structural changes etc. when he had inspected the flat with the permission of the plaintiff. He stated that he inspected the flat personally in the month of September 2019. He again said that his plumber had inspected the flat and he informed him that the pipes were damaged due to structural changes. He stated that he does not remember the name of the plumber. He stated further that he had informed the plaintiff after the plaintiff had left and inspected the vacant flat. The said part of the cross-examination is contrary to the averments made by him in his WS as well as statements made by him in his evidence affidavit, as he has stated therein that he had immediately sent a plumber after he was reported about the dampness by the plaintiff and the said (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 15 of 22) Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2024.12.20 16:51:21 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA plumber had communicated to him that the plaintiff had wrongly created the washing area and wrongly drilled the main pipeline and that he had objected about the same stating that the plaintiff was not allowed to change the structure or make major alterations of the premises and requested the plaintiff to vacate the premises and after that the plaintiff had served the notice to vacate the flat. It is seen from record that the notice of vacation was served by the plaintiff on 31.07.2019 and the same is Ex.PW1/2 and thus, the stance of the defendant, being contradictory, does not inspire any confidence as, in his evidence by way of affidavit, he states that the examination of the premises was gotten conducted by a plumber before the notice of vacation by the plaintiff whereas in his cross examination, he states that he gotten it examined after the plaintiff had already vacated the flat in the month of September. Even DW2 in his cross-examination states that the plumber was called after the suit property was vacated. Further, it is pertinent to note that no such plumber or technician who treated termite infestation in the premises has been gotten examined by the defendant to prove his averment that the dampness or termite infestation in the flat was caused due to any fault of plaintiff.
37.Thus, it appears that the defence taken by the defendant has only been taken to defeat the rightful claim of the plaintiff upon (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Digitally signed Saket Courts, New Delhi by deeksha deeksha madaan 19.12.2024 (Page 16 of 22) madaan Date:
2024.12.20 16:51:27 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA the security amount which was deposited with the defendant. The defendant has further taken the defence that he had to bear expenses for treating damages as occurred in the premises due to misuse of the same by the plaintiff, however, no documentary proof whatsoever has been filed on record by the defendant in support of his defence. DW1/defendant even stated in his cross examination that he has not filed any document or invoices to show that he has borne expenses of Rs. 1,60,000/- for repairing the damage caused by the plaintiff. Even no proof of any communication qua any structural damage to the premises which would entitle him to put his claim on the security deposit and to adjust the same qua such damage has been placed on record. It is only when a legal notice has been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 07.11.2019 claiming return of security deposit, that the defendant sent a reply dated 22.11.2019 stating that he had suffered expenses in getting the structural damages repair. Thus, it appears that the same is a counter blast to the plaintiff's claim on the security deposit.
38. Thus, the plaintiff has been able to prove that the flat had suffered from the problem of dampness as well as termite infestation and that he had duly reported regarding the same to the defendant, however, he did not take any steps to get the situation corrected. Even though it is stated by the defendant in (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 17 of 22) Digitally signed deeksha by deeksha madaan madaan Date: 2024.12.20 16:51:31 +0530 CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA his WS and evidence by way of affidavit that he had sent a plumber when the issue of dampness was reported to him by the plaintiff, it has already been observed that he stood contradicted from such stance in his cross-examination. As far as the termite infestation is concerned, he has stated that he had sent a technician to apply pesticides in the premises to condone the infestation which is also visible from the Whatsapp conversations which have been placed on record that a technician for applying pesticide was indeed sent, however, it is further seen that the plaintiff's father has been informing the defendant regarding the gravity of the situation and asking the defendant to take steps to cure the termite infection else the plaintiff shall be compelled to shift elsewhere and it has been stated by the plaintiff that no steps were taken by the defendant in terms of the agreement and accordingly, the notice for vacation of suit premises was served upon the defendant. The defendant has also stated in his cross examination that the only step be took to control the termite infestation was to call the technician who injected pesticide in the wall of the suit premises. He has further stated that the cause of termite infestation was plaintiff's furniture however, as already noted, the same has not stood proved by examining any such technician who visited the premises and arrived at such finding.
Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
(Deeksha Madaan), 2024.12.20
16:51:38
Civil Judge-02(South) +0530
Saket Courts, New Delhi
19.12.2024 (Page 18 of 22)
CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA
39.Thus, the plaintiff has been able to prove that he is entitled to return of security deposit of Rs. 68,000/- as he had rightly given the notice of vacation of suit premises of one month and the defendant has not been able to prove that the plaintiff had carried out any structural changes in the premises which led to dampness or that his furniture caused termite infestation. Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
40.As far as issue no.2 is concerned, the interest of 24% per annum seems unconscionable. In the opinion of this court, the interest of justice shall be served if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 68,000/- from the date of institution of suit till realization.
41.As far as issue no.3 is concerned, the plaintiff has stated that he had suffered a cost of Rs. 62,000/- due to premature vacation of the flat as he had to bear brokerage of Rs.42,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards the shifting cost, however, he has not led documentary proof regarding the same. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in S.A. v. A.A 2016 SCC Online Del 1818 to state that his oral claims have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted in his cross Digitally signed (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha by deeksha madaan Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Date: 2024.12.20 Saket Courts, New Delhi 16:51:43 +0530 19.12.2024 (Page 19 of 22) CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA examination as no suggestions to the contrary were given him in his cross examination and the claims thus have stood proved on record. It is pertinent to note that the court can require a party to prove a fact even if the said fact is admitted by the opposite party. The absence of cross examination by giving suggestions to the contrary on said aspect can at most be said to be in the form of an admission of the opposite party, however, the court can still require such fact to be proved to its satisfaction. The facts of brokerage and shifting cost are natural to have documents in support of the same and since no such documents have been placed on record, it cannot be said that the said fact, that the plaintiff had borne a cost of Rs. 62,000/-, has stood proved on record. Hence, the said issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
42. As far as issue no. 4 is concerned, it has been proven on record that the plaintiff had to suffer inhabitable conditions in the flat such as dampness and termite infestation and sufficient steps were not taken by the defendant by carrying out major repairs, which was his duty to do so as per the agreement between the parties and rather has blamed the defects on the plaintiff in the absence of any proof thereof and it has further stood proved on record that despite due notice of vacation by the plaintiff to the defendant, he did not refund the security deposit of the plaintiff Digitally signed by deeksha (Deeksha Madaan), deeksha madaan Date: Civil Judge-02(South) madaan 2024.12.20 16:51:47 Saket Courts, New Delhi +0530 19.12.2024 (Page 20 of 22) CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA and hence, it can be stated that the plaintiff suffered mental agony and harassment. He has quantified the said amount at Rs. 50,000/-, however, in the opinion of this court, the interest of justice shall be met if the plaintiff is awarded Rs. 20,000/- qua such mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
43.The onus to prove issue no. 5 and 6 was on the defendant. It has elaborately been discussed in the foregoing paras that the defendant has been unable to prove that he suffered loss or had borne any expense on account of alleged alterations made by the plaintiff in breach of the lease and lisence agreement and has further been unable to prove that the plaintiff is not liable to receive refund of security deposit on account of breach of conditions mentioned in the lease and lisence agreement. Reliance placed upon by the defendant on judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in H.S. Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India, RFA 784/2010 and Ameet Bhatia v. Devyani International Ltd in CS (COMM) No. 612/2021 is of not much help as rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that even though the proposition of law that the landlord can adjust the security deposit towards the damages caused by the tenant in the tenanted premises is undisputed, however, the landlord is still required to prove the damage caused and in this case, as has been elaborately discussed, the Digitally signed (Deeksha Madaan), by deeksha deeksha madaan Civil Judge-02(South) madaan Date:
2024.12.20 Saket Courts, New Delhi 16:51:52 +0530 19.12.2024 (Page 21 of 22) CS SCJ 129/2021 AMAN KAPOOR V. DEEPANSH KALRA defendant has been unable to prove the damage caused or the expenses borne by him to repair those damages. Thus, both these issues are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF
44.In view of findings on all the issues, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed alongwith costs of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.68,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of institution of suit till its realization. He is further entitled to receive from the defendant a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
45.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by deeksha deeksha madaan madaan Date:
2024.12.20 16:52:02 +0530 Announced in the open court (DEEKSHA MADAAN) on 19.12.2024 Civil Judge-02(South) (This judgment contains 22 pages Saket Courts, New Delhi and each page has been signed by me.) 19.12.2024 (Deeksha Madaan), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.12.2024 (Page 22 of 22)