Delhi District Court
(2) Shri Ram Sanskritik Shodh Sansthan ... vs (1) Sh. Atam Prakash on 20 October, 2018
In the Court of Shri V.K. Gautam : Additional Senior Civil
Judge Central District at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
SCC No. 21/16
In the matter of :-
(1) PRACHEEN SHRI AGGARWAL,
Digamber Jain Panchayat (Regd.),
2515-17, Dharampura, Delhi.
(2) SHRI RAM SANSKRITIK SHODH SANSTHAN NYAS,
Khajoori Khas, Delhi.
........Plaintiffs
VERSUS
(1) SH. ATAM PRAKASH,
S/o Sh. Pera Lal
825, Chhota Bazar,
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006.
(2) Sh. MANOHAR LAL BAJAJ
S/o Sh. R.L. Bajaj
R/o A-6/20, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
......Defendant
Date of institution : 26.02.2011
Reserved for Judgment : 08.10.2018
Date of decision : 20.10.2018
Suit for Recovery of Rs.3,312/- (RUPEES THREE THOUSAND
THREE HUNDRED TWELVE ONLY)
SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 1 of 10
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.3,312/-, along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit along with cost.
2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit property i.e. 825, Chhota Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi on the basis of the Will, executed by Smt. Brij Bala, dated 21.07.2001 the probate of which has been granted in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 11.09.2006 passed by Sh. Ravinder Dudeja, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi, on 22.08.2002.
3. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the registered societies under Societies Registration Act and Sh. Vijendra Jain, is the Honorary Secretary of plaintiff No. 1 and Dr. Ram Avtar is authorized representative of the plaintiff No. 2. The defendant is a tenant in respect of one shop in the suit property at the monthly rent of Rs. 92/- excluding electricity and other charges. The defendant has been irregular and habitual defaulter in payment of rent, therefore, the suit for recovery of Rs.3,312/-, bearing no.264/07 towards arrears of rent for the period upto 30.06.2007 was filed SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 2 of 10 and was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs.3,312/- has accrued due to arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.07.2007 to 31.01.2011 from the defendant to the plaintiffs @ Rs.92/- per month, which the defendant has failed to pay despite repeated demands and requests. It is further submitted that the arrears of rent have been claimed by the plaintiffs and the claim of Rs.644/- has been voluntarily given up by them as being barred by time. It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 is claiming himself to be the owner on the basis of the sale deed and has challenged the probate by applying for revocation of letter of Administration granted to Sh. Surjeet Singh Sahni in the court of Ld. District Judge, Delhi, who has been impleaded as performa defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
4. The defendant no.1 has filed his written statement and has taken various preliminary objections that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant; that the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts of the case; that the plaintiffs SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 3 of 10 are not the owner of the suit property; that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as Smt. Indu Chaturvedi and Sh. Manohar Lal Bajaj, who are the owner and subsequent purchaser of the suit property have not been made a party in the present suit. On merits, it is submitted that the defendant is a tenant under Smt. Brij Bala and had paid all the rents to her in respect of the tenanted premises. It is further submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant and no notice of attornment has ever been received by the defendant. The defendant has denied the other averments of the plaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
5. The defendant no.2 has filed the written statement and has taken various preliminary objections therein stating that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property as the defendant no.2 has purchased the same from one Smt. Indu Chaturvedi, who was the beneficiary of the registered Will executed by late Smt. Brij Bala, the erstwhile owner of the suit property; that Sh. Surjeet Singh Sahni who was the administrator SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 4 of 10 of another Will executed by late Smt. Brij Bala had obtained a probate and coming to know about the same that the defendant no.2 had filed a petition for revocation of probate which is pending in the court of Ld. District Judge, Delhi; that the present suit has been filed for seeking declaration as owners by the plaintiffs prior to the decision in the petition for revocation of probate; that the decree in the suit no.264/2007 was obtained by fraudulent means and Sh. Surjeet Singh Sahni has no right, title or interest in the suit property and he had relied upon a forged and fabricated Will. On merits, it is admitted that the defendant no.1 is the tenant in respect of one shop at a monthly rent of Rs.92/- exclusive of electricity and other charges. It is further admitted that the defendant no.1 was irregular and habitual defaulter in payment of rent. It is further admitted that a sum of Rs.3,956/- has become due on account of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01/07/2007 to 31/01/2011. The other averments made in the plaint have been denied and has prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
6. The plaintiffs have filed the replication to the written SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 5 of 10 statement filed by the defendant no.1, wherein the allegations made in the written statement were controverted and the averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed as correct.
7. Initially, the suit was filed against the defendant Sh. Atam Prakash, however, on the application moved on behalf of Sh. Manohar Lal Bajaj, he was impleaded as defendant no.2 in the arrays of parties. On 06/02/2016, it was stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.2 has expired. Thereafter, no application for impleading the LRs of the defendant no.2 was moved and the proceedings qua the defendant no.2 stands abated.
8. On 07.12.2016, from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.3,312/-? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 6 of 10 and has suppressed the material facts? OPD
4. Relief.
9. Thereafter, the defendant stopped to appear in the present case. Hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19/02/2018.
10. The plaintiffs in their evidence have examined Sh. Vijendra Jain, who in his examination in chief has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. He has also proved documents such as Resolution passed in the meeting of Managing Committee held on 05.05.2007, Ex PW 1/1 (OSR). Copy of Vidhan, Ex PW 1/2 (OSR). Certificate of Registration under Societies Registration Act, Ex PW 1/3 (OSR). Meeting (Sankalp) held on 21.07.2007, Ex PW 1/4. The proceedings in another case C.S. No.264/07 for recovery of Rs.3,312/- is exhibited as Ex PW 1/5. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.02.2018, plaintiff's evidence was closed.
11. The defendant has not led any evidence.
12. I have heard final arguments addressed on behalf of the SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 7 of 10 plaintiff and perused the record available on judicial file carefully.
13. ISSUE NO.1 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs.3,312/-? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. PW-1 has not been cross examined on behalf of the defendant. The testimony of the PW-1 has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the uncontroverted testimony of PW-1. The PW-1 has also proved documents as discussed hereinabove. The defendant has not led any evidence to prove that he has paid the rent for the period as claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant has also not led any evidence that the plaintiffs are not the owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs have been able to discharge the onus of this issue. Accordingly, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
14. ISSUE NO.2 :
SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 8 of 10 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so at what rate and for what period? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not led any evidence to prove that there was any agreement to pay the interest as claimed by the plaintiffs in the present suit. The plaintiffs have also claimed pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum which is highly exorbitant and unreasonable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the plaintiffs are granted pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the decretal amount.
15. ISSUE NO.3 :
Whether the plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the plaintiffs have suppressed any material facts or they have not come to the SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 9 of 10 court with clean hands. Therefore, the defendant has failed to discharge the onus of this issue. Accordingly, the issue no.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
RELIEF In view of aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1 for a sum of Rs.3,312/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the said amount is recovered.
Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiffs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally signed by compliance. VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR GAUTAM Date: 2018.10.20 Announced in the Open Court on 20.10.2018 GAUTAM 17:09:37 +0530 (V.K. Gautam) Additional Senior Civil Judge Central District: Tis Hazari Courts Delhi SCC No: 21/16 Page no. 10 of 10