Delhi District Court
Smt. Ritu Ansal vs M/S. Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd on 10 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GARG,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 634/17
Smt. Ritu Ansal,
Wife of Shri Gopal Ansal
Resident of 6, Aurangzeb Road,
New Delhi110001.
Through her Attorney Shri Rajan Mohan Sachdeva
...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd.
Regd. Office : C/902, Safal Parivesh,
Opposite Auda Garden, Prahlad Nagar,
Ahmedabad380015
Through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatories
Also at :
Flat No. C3, Upasana Building,
1Hailey Road, New Delhi110001.
... Defendant
Suit presented on : 27.05.2017
Arguments Concluded on : 10.05.2019
Judgment Pronounced on : 10.05.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages/mesne profits as well as permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) Plaintiff is the owner/landlord/lessor of suit property i.e. Flat No. C3, Upasana Building, 1Hailey Road, New Delhi110001 measuring 2127 sq.ft. and the defendant was inducted as a lessee in respect of suit Flat/property comprising of three with attached toilets, living/dining room with attached toilet, servant CS No. 634/17 Ritu Ansal Vs. M/s Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd. 1 of 8 room with attached toilet, kitchen, balcony, etc. along with one car parking space No.10, initially on monthly rent/lease @ Rs.1,50,000/ for the purpose of residence of directors of the defendant company, in accordance with terms and conditions incorporated in LeaseDeed dated 12th February, 2015.
(b) The said lease was initially for a period of three years commencing w.e.f 16th February, 2015 to 15th February, 2018.
As such, the rent commenced w.e.f 16th February 2015. Since the said leasedeed was not got registered by the defendant, therefore, the tenancy of the defendant remained monthly tenancy as such liability for payment of rent commenced w.e.f 1 st day of each English calendar month.
(c) As per the said leasedeed, initially the monthly rent/lease money agreed was Rs. 1,50,000/, but as per Clause 5 of lease agreement, the same was required to be revised by way of increase @ 5% after every year. As such w.e.f 16th February, 2016, the monthly rent/lease money was payable @ Rs. 1,57,000/ and w.e.f 16th February, 2017, the monthly rent was payable @ Rs. 1,65,375/.
(d) The defendant had failed to comply with terms of lease agreement by failing to pay monthly rent w.e.f 16.06.2016. Although for the period 16.02.2016 to 15.06.2016, the defendant paid rent only @ Rs. 1,50,000/, whereas the defendant was required to pay monthly rent at the revised/increased rate of rent i.e. Rs. 1,57,000/. Further, the defendant has also defaulted in payment of monthly rent @ Rs. 1,57,500/ for the period for the period 16.06.2016 to 15.02.2017. Further, the defendant has also defaulted in payment of monthly rent @ Rs. 1,65,375/ for the period 16.02.2017 onwards. Otherwise also, the cheques CS No. 634/17 Ritu Ansal Vs. M/s Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd. 2 of 8 issued by the defendant have also been dishonored by its banker and presently, the defendant is in arrears of rent/lease money w.e.f 16.06.2016 with interest @ 2% per month, as per Clause 2 of the said Lease Agreement. As such, the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent as per increased rate of rent.
(e) The plaintiff through her attorney demanded the arrears of rent vide letter dated 12.09.2016 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, but the said demand was not complied with. Therefore, the plaintiff through her counsel sent a legal notice dated 28.09.2016 by registered AD post thereby requiring the defendant to pay arrears of rent w.e.f 16.06.2016 along with interest @ 2% per month as well as all arrears of electricity, water and operation & facility management charges in addition of other dues of the plaintiff, but despite receipt of said notice, defendant failed to comply with the terms of notice. Therefore, the plaintiff further sent another legal notice dated 05.12.2016 through her counsel to the defendant thereby terminating the monthly tenancy of the defendant with effect from 15.01.2017 thereby requiring the defendant to hand over the actual vacant physical possession of suit property/flat to the plaintiff failing which, the defendant shall be liable to pay damages/mesne profits for illegal use & occupation thereof w.e.f 16.01.2017, but the defendant has miserably failed to comply with terms of said notice.
(f) The defendant has failed to comply with legal notices sent to it and also failed to handover the vacant as well as peaceful possession of the property to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay damages/mesne profits for unauthorized and illegal use of the suit property at the market CS No. 634/17 Ritu Ansal Vs. M/s Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd. 3 of 8 rate of rent.
(g) The plaintiff has learnt that the intention of defendant has also been malafide and it is intending to part with the possession of the suit property.
(h) Therefore, it is prayed that a decree for possession in respect of suit property i.e. Flat No. C3, Upasana Building, 1Hailey Road, New Delhi110001, measuring 2127 sq. ft. comprising 3(three) bedrooms with attached toilets, living/dining room with attached toilet, servant room with attached toilet, kitchen, balcony, etc. along with one car parking space No.10, be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
(i) The plaintiff also seeks a decree for recovery of Rs. 19,32,500/ on account of arrears of rent/mesne profits/use and occupation charges/damages for the period w.e.f 16.06.2016 to 15.05.2017 i.e. Rs. 30,000/ being the deficient amount of rent from 16.02.2016 to 15.06.2016; Rs. 11,02,500/ on account of arrears of rent for the period w.e.f 16.06.2016 to 15.01.2017 at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1,57,500/. Plaintiff further claims Rs. 8,00,000/ on account of mesne profits/use and occupation charges/damages for the period 16.01.2017 to 15.05.2017 @ Rs. 2,00,000/ per month being the market rate which comes to Rs. 19,32,500/.
(j) The plaintiff also seeks a decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant from parting with possession of the suit property to any other person as well as creating any third party interest.
(k) The plaintiff seeks a decree for recovery of damages/mesne profit for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises @ Rs. 2,00,000/ per month till the handing over the vacant and CS No. 634/17 Ritu Ansal Vs. M/s Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd. 4 of 8 peaceful possession of the premises and also passed under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and interest @ 24% per annum.
2. Upon filing of the present suit, summons for settlement of issues and notice of application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was issued to defendant. The defendant could not be served in the ordinary course. Therefore, the defendant was served by way of publication in daily newspaper "The Statesman" dated 12.02.2018. Sh. Anuj Nair, Ld. Counsel for the defendant appeared on 23.04.2018 and filed his memo of appearance. Since the defendant filed to file its written statement within the prescribed period, an application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. An application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC was also filed on behalf of plaintiff on 20.10.2018. Subsequently, vakalatnama along with written statement and an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant on 04.01.2019.
3. The plaintiff filed her reply to application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC on 30.03.2019. However, no replies to applications under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC have been filed on behalf of the defendant till date. It has been emphatically contended on behalf of the defendant that the mother of Mr. Sanjay Patel, earlier AR of the defendant company was suffering from serious health issues for the past six months. The said AR was taking care of his ailing mother and was staying mostly in Gujarat. He also resigned from his job later on. New AR was appointed by the defendant. Therefore, delay in filing the written statement be condoned.
4. Per contra, it has been emphatically contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant was served by way of publication on 12.02.2018.
CS No. 634/17 Ritu Ansal Vs. M/s Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd. 5 of 8 The defendant entered into appearance before the Court on 23.04.2018. The Court directed the defendant to file its written statement within 30 days and supply advance copy to the plaintiff. However, the defendant failed to file its written statement till 03.01.2019 and it filed its written statement only on 04.01.2019. The written statement was filed after a delay of 226 days. Mr. Sanjay Patel was never AR of the defendant in the present case and there is no document on record reflecting that he was appointed as AR in the present case at any point of time. There is nothing on record to substantiate that Mr. Sanjay Patel was busy attending his mother for six months, as claimed. Further, the defendant has miserably failed to explained as to why it did not file any application seeking extension of time to file written statement or appoint a new AR. It has not been disclosed by the defendant as to on which date, the present AR had joined its services. Therefore, no ground for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the written statement is made out and the suit deserves to be made summarily decreed in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.
5. The Court is of the considered view that it is not in dispute that the defendant was served by way of publication on 12.02.2018 and 30 days time was granted to it to file its written statement vide order dated 23.04.2018. As per record, Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma is AR of the defendant company. There is nothing on record to establish that Mr. Sanjay Patel was AR of the defendant company in the present case at any point of time. Absolutely no record to substantiate the claim of illness of mother of Mr. Sanjay Patel has been filed on behalf of the defendant. The defendant has failed to disclose and prima facie establish as to why, it did not appoint any other AR to represent it in the present case. Therefore, the defendant has miserably failed to explain inordinate delay on its part, in filing its written statement. Therefore, there is no merit in the application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Even otherwise, in its CS No. 634/17 Ritu Ansal Vs. M/s Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd. 6 of 8 written statement, the defendant has miserably failed to disclose as to in what capacity, it is in possession of the suit property/flat and file supporting documents in terms of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Maria Margadia Sequeria Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370.
6. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is summarily decreed in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Applications under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiff are disposed of as infructuous. The Courts holds that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property i.e. Flat No. C3, Upasana Building, 1Hailey Road, New Delhi110001, measuring 2127 sq. ft. comprising 3(three) bedrooms with attached toilets, living/dining room with attached toilet, servant room with attached toilet, kitchen, balcony, etc. along with one car parking space No.10, as shown in red color in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The plaintiff is also held entitled to recovery of Rs. 19,32,500/ along with interest at the agreed rate of 2% per month, on account of arrears of rent and mesne profits/use and occupation charges/damages for the period w.e.f 16.06.2016 to 15.05.2017 (Rs. 30,000/ being the deficient amount of rent from 16.02.2016 to 15.06.2016; Rs. 11,02,500/ on account of arrears of rent for the period w.e.f 16.06.2016 to 15.01.2017 at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1,57,500/ and Rs. 8,00,000/ on account of mesne profits/use and occupation charges/damages for the period 16.01.2017 to 15.05.2017 @ Rs. 2,00,000/ per month). Further, the plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of mesne profits/use and occupation charges/damages @ Rs. 2,00,000/ per month along with interest at the agreed rate of 2% per month, with effect from 16.05.2017 till the date of handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property/flat to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also held entitled to a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from parting with possession of the suit property or CS No. 634/17 Ritu Ansal Vs. M/s Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd. 7 of 8 creating any third party interest therein. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Pronounced in open Court (Sandeep Garg)
on 10.05.2019 Additional District Judge01,
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
CS No. 634/17 Ritu Ansal Vs. M/s Shakti Sona Solar Electric Ltd. 8 of 8