Delhi District Court
Smt. Rama Rani vs Sh. Sanjeev Relhan on 2 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGECUMJUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURTCUMGUARDIAN
JUDGE, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 464/13
Smt. Rama Rani,
W/o Sh. Som Nath,
R/o C458, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Sanjeev Relhan
S/o Lt. Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o B1/604, DDA HIG Flats,
Pitampura, Delhi.
Also at:
A97, 2nd Floor,
Khasra no. 88/89, Gali Mahavira,
Haiderpur Industrial Area,
New Delhi110088.
2. M/s. Shalex Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director Sh. Sanjeev Relhan,
105, Nitika Tower 1,
Azadpur Commercial Complex,
Delhi110033. ....Defendants
Date of Institution: 29.11.2013
Date on which judgment was reserved: 18.02.2015
Date of pronouncing judgment: 02.03.2015
Suit No. 464/13 Rama Rani v. Sanjeev Relhan & Anr. 1 of 7
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed present suit for recovery of possession of suit property i.e. Second Floor forming part of property having area measuring 165 sq. yds. out of Khasra no. 88/89 (now having municipal no. A97) Gali Mahavira, situated at Haiderpur, Delhi110088 and for damages.
2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the defendants were inducted as tenant over the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 5000/ excluding electricity and water charges vide duly registered lease deed dated 18.06.2007 for a period of 21 months w.e.f. 15.05.2007. After expiry of the said registered lease deed, a fresh lease deed was executed between the parties on 08.04.2009 for a further period of 21 months and the rent was increased to Rs. 5,500/ per month excluding electricity and water charges. After expiry of the said lease deed dated 08.04.2009, no further lease deed was executed in writing between the parties. But, the terms and conditions contained in the earlier lease deed continued to be the same for a further period of 21 months (expiring on 30.09.2012) with modification that rate of rent was increased to Rs. 6,500/ per month. Subsequently, after expiry of the said oral lease agreement, the defendants had not handed over the possession of tenanted premises to plaintiff despite requests. The defendants were not regular in making payment of the rent. Even, some of the cheques issued by them had also been dishonored. Thereafter, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 25.09.2013, whereby she terminated the tenancy of the Suit No. 464/13 Rama Rani v. Sanjeev Relhan & Anr. 2 of 7 defendants w.e.f. 31.10.2013. But, the defendants neither sent any reply nor complied with the requisites of the said notice. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
3. The defendants did not put their appearance despite service of summons of the suit. Accordingly, they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 13.08.2014 and matter was fixed for leading plaintiff's evidence.
4. To prove her claim, the plaintiff examined one witness. PW1 is the plaintiff herself. She submitted almost on the similar lines as stated by her in her plaint. She tendered site plan as Ex. PW1/1, rent agreement dated 18.06.2007 as Ex. PW1/2, rent agreement dated 08.04.2009 as Ex. PW1/3, a notice dated 14.09.2013 sent by defendants to the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/4, reply dated 25.09.2013 to the said notice sent by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/5, postal receipt as Ex. PW1/6, legal notice dated 25.09.2013 sent by the plaintiff to defendants as Ex. PW1/7, postal receipts as Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/10, A.D. card as Ex. PW1/11 and returned envelope as Ex. PW1/12. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed her evidence.
5. I have heard the final arguments advanced by counsel for plaintiff. I have perused the record.
6. The plaintiff has claimed that defendants are her tenants over the suit property. Further, initially, the rate of rent of the suit property was Rs.
Suit No. 464/13 Rama Rani v. Sanjeev Relhan & Anr. 3 of 7 5000/ per month. Subsequently, it was increased to Rs. 5,500/ per month and lastly, it was increased through oral agreement to Rs. 6,500/ per month. Although the above said avernments made on behalf of plaintiff had remained unchallenged by the defendants. Yet, it is pertinent to note that the rent agreement dated 08.04.2009 is not a registered document, which is so required keeping in view the period of tenancy of 21 months. However, the said rate of rent i.e. Rs. 5,500/ per month had been admitted by the defendants in their notice Ex. PW1/4 sent to the plaintiff. So far as further increase of rate of rent to Rs. 6,500/ per month is concerned, the plaintiff did not produce any evidence/document on record so as to establish that the defendant had been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 6,500/ per month after the expiry of rent agreement dated 08.04.2009. She did not even produce the cheques issued by the defendants in lieu of rent payable by them, as claimed by the plaintiff in para no. 7 of her evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A. In these circumstances, the rate of rent for the tenanted premises would be considered as Rs. 5,500/ per month only. Further, it has remained unchallenged that the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy through legal notice dated 25.09.2013 Ex. PW1/7.
7. The plaintiff has proved the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Further, the rate of rent of the suit property was Rs. 5,500/ per month. Further, tenancy had been terminated by issuance of legal notice. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of the possession of the suit property from the defendant.
Suit No. 464/13 Rama Rani v. Sanjeev Relhan & Anr. 4 of 7
8. The plaintiff has claimed damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 25000/ per month with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till vacation of the suit property. It has already been observed that issuance of legal notice Ex. PW1/7, whereby the tenancy had been terminated by plaintiff has remained unchallenged. By virtue of text of the said legal notice, defendants were to vacate the tenanted premises on or before 31.10.2013. Hence, the defendants would be said to be in unauthorized possession over the suit property since 01.11.2013. Now, it is to be examined as to at what rate, mesne profits shall be awarded to the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not produce any evidence to prove that Rs. 25,000/ per month would have been reasonable compensation for her deprivation of the suit property from the defendants. The plaintiff did not ask the Court to initiate inquiry in respect of the rate of compensation to be provided to her by defendants for unauthorized occupation of the suit property. The Apex Court in Ganapati Madhav Sawant (dead) Through his Lrs. v. Dattur Madhav Sawant, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 175, has held that:
7. The High Court while deciding the Second Appeal, failed to notice that while issuing notice it was categorically noted that the plaintiff had not prayed for an inquiry relating to mesne profit in terms of Order XX Rule 12 CPC and in the absence of any specific prayer for any inquiry into that aspect, the same could not have been granted.
9. However, the Court takes judicial notice that there had been steep increase in the rent of the property in Delhi. Hence, the plaintiff shall be awarded Suit No. 464/13 Rama Rani v. Sanjeev Relhan & Anr. 5 of 7 mesne profits after 20% increase in the monthly rate of rent payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. Such increase is reasonable considering that rent of Rs. 5,500/ per month had been fixed on 08.04.2009 i.e. more than four and half years back to filing of the present suit. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6600/ per month from date of filing of present suit i.e. 29.11.2013 till handing over of the tenanted premises by the defendants to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 15% per annum. But, it is pertinent to note that there is no agreed rate of interest between the parties payable for the rent/mesne profits accrued against the defendants. Hence, the Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff is awarded pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% on the above said amount of mesne profits. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the defendants on the mesne profits become payable for the respective months after 29.11.2013.
10.The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of possession of the suit property i.e. Second Floor forming part of property having area measuring 165 sq. yds. out of Khasra no. 88/89 (now having municipal no. A97) Gali Mahavira, situated at Haiderpur, Delhi 110088, as shown red in site plan Ex. PW1/1. The plaintiff is further entitled to recovery of damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6,600/ per month from the date of filing of the present suit till handing over of possession of the suit property by defendants to her. She is entitled to Suit No. 464/13 Rama Rani v. Sanjeev Relhan & Anr. 6 of 7 pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the defendants on the mesne profits become payable for the respective months after 29.11.2013. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The decree in respect of mesne profits be executed only after payment of appropriate court fee. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover costs of the suit from the defendants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Naveen Gupta)
nd
on day of 2 March, 2015 Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Judge,
Small Causes Court cum Guardian Judge,
NorthWest District, Rohini, Delhi.
Suit No. 464/13 Rama Rani v. Sanjeev Relhan & Anr. 7 of 7