Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Vishan Dass Narang vs M/S Adams International Exports Pvt. ... on 30 September, 2011

    IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR : ADJ­03 (C) : DELHI 


Suit No.291/2008

Sh. Vishan Dass Narang,
S/o Late Sh. C.R. Narang,
R/o I­56, Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi - 110024.                                                              .....Plaintiff. 

                                                   Versus

1. M/s Adams International Exports Pvt. Ltd.,
    Through its Managing Director,
    Sh. Mohan Singh,
    S/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh,
    I­56, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024.
    IInd Address:­
    Sh. Mohan Singh,
    S/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh,
    I­56, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024.
2. Sh. Mohan Singh,
    S/o Sh. Balwant Singh,
    R/o I­25, IIIrd Floor, Lajpat Nagar-III, 
    New Delhi-110024.                                                            .....Defendants. 

J U D G M E N T

1. The instant suit for recovery of possession, injunction, mesne profits, damages and user charges etc. has been filed by the aforementioned plaintiff against the aforesaid defendant interalia making the following prayers:­ Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 1 of pages 49

(i).a decree for possession in respect of the premises bearing no.I­56, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan enclosed with the plaint may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants may be ordered to vacate and to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the entire tenanted premises in their possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff may be put into the physical possession of the same;

(ii).a decree for the sum of Rs.4,80,000/­ (Rs. Four Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) on account of arrears of rent alongwith future interest @ 24% per annum may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants both jointly as well as severally.

(iii).a decree for mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendants for the period commencing from 01.04.2000 onwards till the defendants vacate and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 2 of pages 49 against the defendants both jointly and severally. The amount of mesne profits be determined by the Court and the Court may be pleased to pass a decree for the specific amounts on account of mesne profits for the period mentioned above, which may be determined and found due to the plaintiff from the defendants. The Court may be further pleased to pass a decree for interest on the amounts of mesne profits which may be found due to the plaintiff from the defendants @ 24% per annum from 01.04.2000 onwards till the payment of the amounts to the plaintiff and till the defendants vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff;

(iv).a decree for permanent injunction may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants, their agents, servants and persons acting on their behalf may be restrained from carrying out any commercial activity in the suit premises and from using it for commercial purposes;

(v).A decree for permanent injunction may be passed in Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 3 of pages 49 favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendants, their agents, servants, etc., may be restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit premises. They may also be restrained from parting with the possession and from assigning the possession to any third party/authority;

(vi).a decree may also be passed against both the defendants jointly and severally as both the defendants are liable to pay the same.

2. As per plaint, the plaintiff a retired Govt. servant and a senior citizen, is the owner of the premises bearing No.I­56, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi. He is having six daughters and only son. The premises in question is residential and it is situated in a residential area and it can only be used for residential purposes under the title deed executed by the Govt. of India in respect of the aforesaid property and under the Master Plan of Delhi under the Zonal plan of this area and under the Delhi Development Act. Since the premises can be let out for residential purpose, so it was let out to the defendants for residential purposes only. The defendants had filed a site plan in the civil suit bearing no.420/1998 for injunction against the plaintiff wherein the Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 4 of pages 49 tenanted premises have been shown in the red colour. The site plan was sanctioned by the MCD for the residential purposes. The plaintiff has filed the aforesaid site plan of the defendants alongwith this suit to avoid unnecessary delay and dispute, though the defendants have made some illegal and unauthorized additions, etc., without the permission and consent of the plaintiff. The defendants have also shown in the said site plan that they are using the premises in question for commercial purpose/corporate office of the company. The suit premises is being misused for Corporate office as well as for the trading, marketing and for fabrication of garments. Besides this, they are also dealing in consumer items such as cosmetics, soaps, shampoos etc., from the suit premises. The defendants have themselves admitted in the civil suit bearing No.420/1998 filed by them against the plaintiff which is pending in the court of Ld. CJ, Delhi that they are using the suit premises for corporate office amongst others. Thus, the misuse of the suit premises for commercial purposes stands admitted in their own suit mentioned above. This also stands established from their conviction by the Ld. MM, New Delhi U/s 14 and 29(2) of DDA vide order dated 02.11.1992. The defendant Mohan Singh remained in jail from 04.11.1998 to Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 5 of pages 49 25.08.1999 U/s 194/466/471 IPC for forging the court's record. The above mentioned case titled as Supreme Court Registrar Vs. Mohan Singh pending in the court of Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, was filed by Hon'ble Registrar, Supreme Court on the direction of Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The defendant Mohan Singh is also involved in several criminal cases in Delhi, Ambala, UP etc. The above mentioned premises was taken by Sh. Mohan Singh, defendant No.2 from the plaintiff for residential purposes. Sh. Mohan Singh, defendant No.2 started alleging that the premises in the suit had been taken by defendant No.1 through him. Defendant No.2 so stated in the civil suit filed by him against the plaintiff about which reference has been made in the earlier para of the plaint. The plaintiff is filing this suit against both the defendants to avoid technical objections and to avoid delay in the disposal of the civil suit which may be caused by the defendants due to technical objections which may be taken by them. Therefore, both the defendants are liable jointly as well as severally to the plaintiff. The DDA had also filed criminal complaint U/s 14 r/w S 29(2) of Delhi Development Act, 1957 against both the defendants in which they were convicted by the court of Sh. A.K.Garg, the then Ld. MM, Delhi vide order dated 02.11.1992. Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 6 of pages 49 It is further submitted that Sh. Manmohan Singh had taken three portions of premises No.I­56, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi on rent from the plaintiff for residential purposes only. First of all, the defendant had taken a portion of the aforesaid house consisting of the part of basement comprising of basement hall, measuring 15 x 45 for a period of 3 years on a monthly rent of Rs.800/­ excluding other charges vide rent agreement dated 17.07.1980 for residential purposes. Thereafter another portion of the basement comprising of basement hall measuring 12 x 57 was taken on rent by the defendants for a period of 3 years at the rate of Rs.1000/­ per month excluding other charges, vide rent agreement dated 03.09.1982, which was subsequently increased to Rs.1200/­ per month excluding other charges. Thereafter the defendant had taken third portion of the ground floor on rent for residential purposes at the rate of Rs.1000/­ per month excluding other charges. The tenancy was verbal. the rent receipts were issued to the plaintiff. In every rent receipt(s) which were issued to the defendants, it has been clearly mentioned that the purpose of letting is residential. The defendants treated the entire tenanted portion of the premises as one tenancy. The defendants have filed a totally vaxatious and malacious civil suit bearing Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 7 of pages 49 No.420/1998 for injunction against the plaintiff just to harass the plaintiff and to upsurp the property of the plaintiff and to avoid payment of arrears of rent/user charges/mesne profits, etc. The defendants in clear contravention of the terms of tenancy, misused the residential premises for commercial purposes, despite strong protests of the plaintiff in this regard. It has also been caused great damage to the residential property of the plaintiff, besides causing financial loss to the plaintiff. The tenanted premises had been assessed to house tax for residential premises for commercial purposes without the consent and permission of the plaintiff and in clear contravention of law and terms of tenancy and terms of the lease deed executed by the Govt. of India in his favour. The result was that the MCD had exorbitantly increased the rateable value of the aforesaid residential property for misuse of same for commercial purposes by the defendant, as the property tax for commercial premises is assessed and fixed at a much higher rate as compared to residential premises. The increase in rateable value and property tax is manifold. Similarly, the water connections and electric connection, which had been taken for household and residential purposes by the plaintiff, were also misused by the defendants for commercial Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 8 of pages 49 purposes. Therefore, the Delhi Vidyut Board and Delhi Jal Board had also increased the electric and water charges at the commercial rate as the defendants misused the domestic electric and water connections for commercial purposes. Thus the liability relating to house tax and other liabilities have also been increased considerably by the concerned authorities due to the misuse of the residential premises for commercial purposes by the defendants without the consent and permission of the plaintiff and against the strong protests of the plaintiff. However, the defendants have failed to stop the misuse of the residential premises for commercial purposes despite their conviction for misuse and notices of the plaintiff. When the defendants failed to stop the misuse of the residential premises for commercial purposes despite their first conviction mentioned above, the DDA filed second complaint against them under Section 14 read with Section 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 for misuse of the residential premises for commercial purposes. It will not be out of place to mention over here that the Govt. of India refused to convert the aforesaid leasehold property of the plaintiff into freehold property, despite the requests of the plaintiff due to the misuse of the residential premises by the defendant for commercial purposes. In Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 9 of pages 49 most of the residential property in this area, these have been converted into freehold properties, but the plaintiff is suffering due to the breach of the terms of the lease and contravention of law by the defendants, as the defendants continue to misuse the residential premises for commercial purposes. The tenancy of the defendant came to an end by efflux of time. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, the plaintiff again terminated the tenancy of the defendants vide notice dated 24.04.2000 and called upon the defendants to vacate and to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the plaintiff. However, the defendants failed to comply with the aforesaid notice of the plaintiff. The tenancy period of the defendants had already expired due to the efflux of time, even before the issuance of the aforesaid notice served by the plaintiff. The defendants have been illegally and wrongfully retaining the possession of the aforesaid residential premises under their possession despite expiry of the agreed period of tenancy and despite termination of notice mentioned above. On the other hand, the defendants as submitted filed a totally vexatious and malicious suit for injunction bearing no.420/1998 against the plaintiff. The defendants have not correctly stated the rate of rent/user charges, Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 10 of pages 49 nor they have correctly stated the terms of the tenancy in their aforesaid suit. Thereafter, plaintiff again served a notice dated 01.07.2002 on the defendants in continuation of the earlier notice dated 24.04.2000 without waiving and superseding the aforesaid notice dated 24.04.2000 and gave 15 days notice to the defendants expiring with the last date of the tenancy and called upon the defendants to vacate and to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the residential premises in question to the plaintiff and also to pay/clear the entire arrears of electricity and water charges by paying the same and also to pay the entire amounts of arrears of rent, mesne profits/user charges due from them to the plaintiff. However, the defendants have failed to comply with the aforesaid notices till date. It is also averred that under the rent agreement dated 03.09.1982 by which the second portion of the basement had been let out to the defendants, it had been agreed in the Rent Agreement itself that if the premises are not vacated on the expiry period of three years, the rent will be increased by 50% on the expiry of three years and thereafter, the rent will be increased by 20% every year. In this way, the agreed rent/user charges under the said rent deed alone comes out to be Rs.25,147/­ per month excluding other charges for Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 11 of pages 49 the aforesaid portion alone. Similarly, the rent/user charges for the other each portion is not less than Rs.20,000/­ per month, as per the oral understanding and as per the market rate of rent. The market rent/user charges of each of the aforesaid portions is not less than Rs.20,000/­ per month. The plaintiff is suffering damages and financial loss of more than Rs.60,000/­ per month. The defendants are liable to pay at least @ Rs.60,000/­ per month for the tenanted premises mentioned above. The plaintiff bonafide requires the suit premises for his own residence and residence of his dependent family members. The tenancy of the defendants as submitted above has been legally and validly terminated through the notices mentioned above and also due to the efflux of time. The possession of the defendants over the suit premises in question is unauthorized and without authority of law. The defendants, despite of protest and service of demand notice, are illegally and unauthorizedly retaining the possession of the tenanted premises and misusing the residential premises for commercial purposes without the consent and permission of the plaintiff. The tenanted premises, as submitted above, have been shown in red colour in the site plan. The defendants have failed to vacate and to hand over the vacant and Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 12 of pages 49 peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff and also failed to stop the misuse of the residential premises for commercial purposes and also failed to pay the legally recoverable arrears of rent/user charges mesne profits after the tenancy of the defendants came to an end by efflux of time and by service of legal demand notices of the plaintiff on the defendants mentioned above. To further harass and penalize the plaintiff, the defendants even colluded with the officials of the MCD and stopped paying user charges/mesne profits to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.01.1989 on the pretext of a collusive order of attachment of the rent said to have been obtained by the defendants from the MCD. The defendants even after getting the collusive attachment order paid some small amounts to the MCD for some period. The defendants are also liable to pay the user charges/mesne profits to the plaintiff at the market rate as the plaintiff is suffering financially of the market rate for failure on the part of the defendants to vacate and to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed the possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff has also claimed the arrears of rent/mesne profits/user charges since 01.01.1999 even though the defendants have not paid a single penny Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 13 of pages 49 to the plaintiff since 01.01.1989. The defendants are liable to pay the arrears of rent for the period prior to the service of the Legal Demand Notice dated 24.04.2000 and after the service of the said notice, the defendants are liable to pay user charges/mesne profits, etc., for illegally and wrongfully retaining the possession of the suit premises. However the plaintiff claims an amount of Rs.4,80,000/­ only on account of arrears of rent commencing from 01.01.1999 to 31.03.2000 @ Rs.60,000/­ per month. The entire claim is within time as the defendants have made part payment of the rent due for the aforesaid period to the MCD in the year of 2001 & 2002. The plaintiff claims mesne profits for the period 01.04.2000 till the defendants vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff which may be determined by the Court for use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendants, as the tenancy of the defendants stood terminated by serving legal demand notice of the plaintiff on the defendants dated 24.04.2000 and 01.07.2002 without prejudice to the contentions of the plaintiff that the tenancy had already come to an end by efflux of time. The defendants are also liable to pay the interest @ 24% per annum which is the market rate of interest on the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 14 of pages 49 from the defendants on account of arrears of rent and mesne profits etc. since the defendants have failed to vacate and hand over vacant possession and failed to pay the arrears demanded by the plaintiff and have also failed to stop misuser of the residential premises for commercial purposes, hence the present suit. The cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the tenancy of the defendants came to an end by efflux of time and again when the plaintiff served demand notice dated 24.04.2000 and 01.07.2002 and again when the defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent for the period prior to the service of demand notice dated 24.04.2000 and again when they made part payment to M.C.D and for arrears of misuser charges/mesne profits etc., for the period after the service of the said notice, commencing from 01.04.2000 as and when these fell due every month and the defendants failed to pay the same and again when the defendants failed to stop misuser of the residential premises for commercial purposes despite service of the Legal Demand Notice dated 24.04.2000 and 01.07.2000 and their conviction by the Ld. MM under Section 14 read with Section 29 (2) of Delhi Development Act and since then it is continuing. This Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The suit has Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 15 of pages 49 been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.

3. The defendants no.1 & 2 contested the suit by filing their joint Written Statement, wherein it is claimed that defendant no.1 is the tenant in respect of the ground floor consisting of three rooms, a kitchen, two toilets and one bathroom and two basements measuring 45x15 & 60x15 at the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/­ p.m and defendant no.2 is the Managing Director of defendant no.1, who is residing and looking after the export consultancy business in the suit premises in the capacity of Managing Director of defendant no.1. Initially the tenancy in respect of one basement hall only measuring 45X15 was created in the year 1980 at a monthly rent of Rs.800/­ only. Then in the year 1983 when the business of defendant company was growing and it was in need of some space, the plaintiff suggested to construct the building on the remaining half plot of the suit premises only if the defendants pay money in advance. The defendant no.2 paid the advance money and after making construction of the new building the plaintiff gave one more basement 60x15 and the ground floor to the defendant. The defendant no.1 had paid rent in advance and was paying regularly as and when become due either to the plaintiff or to the MCD and has paid upto date rent to Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 16 of pages 49 the plaintiff. In the year 1989 MCD attached the rent vide notice dated 29.05.1989 for the recovery of House Tax of Rs.73,725/­ and the defendant no.1 paid rent to the MCD during that period also. The plaintiff got annoyed by the fact that the rent was being paid to the MCD, the plaintiff sent his person to the office of defendant on 24.04.1994 and gave beatings to the defendant no.2. The matter was reported to the police. It is claimed that the plaintiff is indulging all sort of ugly and indecent activities to pressurize the defendant to vacate the premises. A number of criminal cases are pending against the plaintiff and his family members. In the year 1998 MCD attached the rent vide their notice dated 16.09.1998 as the plaintiff was in default of Rs.6,36,070/­ of house tax. The defendant no.1 company has no option except to pay rent to MCD. The defendants have also raised several preliminary objections like the suit is bad for mis joinder of parties as the tenancy is only in the name of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 has been unnecessarily added in the suit; even otherwise the suit is barred U/s 50 of DRC Act as the rate of rent is only Rs.3,000/­ p.m and is covered under DRC Act; plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands; the suit is based on false and frivolous facts; suit lacks cause of action as the defendant no.1 is Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 17 of pages 49 paying agreed rent regularly and the suit is vague in all respect also.

On merits, it is claimed that the plaintiff is a property dealer and his six daughters are married long before and living with their respective husbands. It is denied that the disputed premises is residential or can be used only for residential purpose. The 90% of the area around the premises is mostly used for commercial purpose. The use of the tenanted portion is known to the plaintiff from the date of first letting in the year 1980 when only one basement hall with kitchen, toilet and bathroom with no water was let out. Even prior to letting it out, the building was being used as commercial by the plaintiff. It is claimed that the plaintiff got annoyed by the fact the defendant started paying rent of Rs.3,000/­ p.m to the MCD since 1998 as the plaintiff was in arrears of house tax and defendant no.1 company was directed to pay rent to MCD. The defendant no.1 is paying rent to the MCD and this fact is well within the knowledge of plaintiff. The criminal case pending before Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Court is nothing to do with the present case. The defendant Mohan Singh first of all has taken only a basement measuring 15x45 for three years on a monthly rent of Rs.800/­ p.m vide Rent Agreement dated 17.07.1980. The basement which was initially let out to the defendant Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 18 of pages 49 does not consist latrine, bathroom or kitchen or any other portions of a residential house. In fact, this basement was being used commercially and this fact can be verified from the Electricity Department as bill of one meter in the plaintiff name was commercial and use of building as commercial was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Subsequently, one more basement 60x15 and the ground floor after construction of the new building was rented out to the plaintiff as mentioned herein above. The facts mentioned in the alleged Rent Agreement becomes devoid of any legal force and the defendant continued to use the premises in the manner in which they are being used at the time of filing of the Written Statement and the same was known to the plaintiff and was used with his consent only. This fact stands proved by the fact that the plaintiff did not raise any objection for a long period of more than 23 years. The defendant company had paid rent in advance and was paying regularly as and when it become due either to the plaintiff or the MCD. It is denied that the plaintiff ever protested against the user of the tenanted portion. It is denied that the defendants have been illegally or wrongfully retaining the possession of the tenanted premises or the tenancy has been terminated by the notice. The notice dated 01.07.2002 given by Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 19 of pages 49 the plaintiff was in fact a part of illegal design of the plaintiff against the defendant no.1 company. It is denied that the agreed rent user/ charges comes out to be Rs.25,147/­ excluding other charges. It is denied that any oral understanding was there to increase the rent as stated . It is denied that the plaintiff is suffering damages or financial losses of more than Rs.60,000/­ p.m. It is denied that plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own residence or the residence of his dependent family members. It is denied that the defendants colluded with the MCD officials or stopped paying rent to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.01.1989. It is denied that the defendants are liable to pay the arrears of rent. The claim of the plaintiff on that account is false. It is claimed that no cause of action as alleged under para ever accrued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Suit is beyond jurisdiction of this Court and as such none of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are available.

4. The plaintiff did not file the replication to the written statement of defendant No. 1 and 2, despite of giving opportunities.

5. On completion of pleading of the parties, following issues were settled on 18.03.2004:­

(i).Whether the suit is bad for mis­joinder of the parties? OPD. Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 20 of pages 49

(ii).Whether the suit is barred U/s 50 of DRC Act ? OPD.

(iii).Whether there is no cause of action? OPD.

(iv).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed for? OPP.

(v).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mesne profit/ damages as prayed for ? OPP.


                (vi).Whether    the    plaintiff     is    entitled    to    claim    rent    as

                     prayed for?                                                                 OPP.

                (vii).Relief.

6. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined as many as nine witnesses, whereas in their defence the defendants have examined ten witnesses.

7. PW­1 Sh. Vishan Dass Narang (the plaintiff) in his examination­in­chief tendered by way of affidavit while reiterating the contents of the plaint has also exhibited the following documents:­

(i). Certified copy of Lease Deed dtd. 21.06.1961. : Ex.P­1.

(ii). Certified copy of the registered Deed of Conve yance dtd. 21.06.1961 executed between the plaintiff and the Government of India. : Ex.P­2.

(iii). Certified Copy of Site Plan showing tenanted portion in red colour. : Ex.P­3.

(iv). Copy of Rent Agreement dated 17.07.1980. : Ex.P­4. Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 21 of pages 49

(vi). Copy of Rent Agreement dated 03.09.1982. : Ex.P­5.

(vii). Certified copies of the Rent Receipts. : Ex.P­6 to Ex.P­8.

(viii). Copy of notice dated 01.07.2002 whereby the tenancy of the defendant was terminated. : Ex.P­9.

(ix). Copy of Legal Notices dated 24.04.2000. : Ex.P­10.

& Ex.P­11. 

             (x). Copies of the Postal Receipts.                     : Ex.P­12.
                                                                     to Ex.P­14.
             (xii). Certified True Copy of the Registered Rent
                      Agreement dtd. 01.03.03 arrived at between
                      landlord and the tenants.                      :  Ex.P­15.

(xiii). Certified copy of Lease Deed dtd. 12.05.1994. : Ex.P­16. (xix). Certified copy of Lease Deed dtd. 12.05.1994. : Ex.P­17. (xx). Certified copy of judgment dtd. 16.05.98 titled as G.K. Kathpalia and another Vs. S. Kumar. : Ex.P18A (xxi). Certified copy of judgment dtd. 28.02.03 titled as Tejender Singh Vs. Zenith Saree House. : Ex.P­19. (xxii). Letters of refusal of the L & DO dtd. 06.09.94, 18.01.1996 and 24.04.2000 respectively. : Ex.P­20 to Ex.P­22.

(xxiii). Copy of the order of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.11.1992 and 06.11.1992 respectively. : Ex.P­24 & Ex.P­25.

(xxiv). Attested copy of complaint filed by the DDA U/s 14 and 29 of DDA Act. : Ex.P­27.

(xxv). Certified copy of another complaint filed by the DDA U/s 14 and 29 (2) of the DDA Act. : Ex.P­28.

(xxvi). Cutting of the newspaper "The Times of India"

Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 22 of pages 49 dated 03.02.2002 wherein the advertisement was given by the defendant to the effect that the premises are being used for commercial purposes. : Ex.P­29.
Besides above, PW­1 has also placed a citation in his support Ex.P­18.
During cross examination he conceded that when he let out the basement of property bearing no.I­56, Lajpat Nagar, consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor, out of the total area of plot comprising of 200 sq. yds, the construction was raised only on the area of 100 sq. yds. and at that time there was no latrine and bathroom or kitchen in the basement. The defendant was not residing there and the same was let out for godown purpose. The remaining 100 sq. yds of land was constructed after 2­3 years of letting out the basement. He had taken an advance probably of Rs.10,000/­ from the defendant at the time of construction of remaining area. Thereafter an another tenancy was created and he had taken Rs.10,000/­ as advance including the advance which was taken when the area which was constructed at the time of third tenancy was created. He could not confirm whether the said amount of Rs.10,000/­ was paid by cash or cheque. The rent agreement took Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 23 of pages 49 place with defendant Mohan Singh and not with Adam International P. Ltd. and the cheques were given by Mohan Singh and not by Adam International P. Ltd. Mohan Singh was running office from there since 1989. He had given him notice asking him not to use the premises for office purposes. No notice was given to him in writing before serving of Legal Notice. He conceded that the defendant is occupying the premises as a tenant. He expressed his ignorance to the fact as to whether the defendant has been paying the rent to the MCD since 29.05.1989. He conceded that case FIR No.321/89 was registered against him at PS Greater Kailash Part I for offence U/s 342/376 IPC. He also conceded that case FIR No.88/94 U/s 452/324/336 IPC FIR No.334/98 U/s 364A and 364 IPC and Fir No.280/92 U/s 324/34 IPC were registered at PS Chitranjan Park against him. He conceded that he had not given any written notice to defendants for increase of rent. He claimed that as the defendant was promising to vacate the premises, so no such notice was given.
PW2 Sh. Brajesh Gupta produced the record of the case No.155/2001 titled as DDA Vs. M/s Adam Papers containing FIR (certified copy of which is Ex­P­27) and the list of documents is Ex­ PW2/1 and certified Copy of show cause notice is Ex­PW2/2 and Ex­ Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 24 of pages 49 PW2/3. He also brought the file pertaining to suit No.351/2002 titled as DDA Vs. Ms/ Adam International Exports. He proved the certified copy of FIR Ex­P­28, copy of show cause notice Ex­PW2/4, certified copy of EMS Speed Post Ex.PW2/5, Certified copy of list of documents Ex­PW2/6 and the certified copy of notice given U/s 251 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/7 & Ex.PW2/8.
During cross examination he stated that both the aforesaid cases are still under trial.
PW3 S.R Singh Asst. L& DO office Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi has brought the summoned record i.e. the letters Ex­P20 to Ex.P­22.
PW4 Sh. Jai Prakash Civil Nazir produced the case file of complaint case No. 51/01 titled as Amar Singh Vs. Mohan Singh. He proved the copy of the complaint Ex­PW4/1 and also the copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court Ex­PW4/2.
PW5 Sh. Rajesh Kumar produced the file pertaining to Adam International Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bishan Dass Narang pertaining to suit No 420/98, wherein he shown the copy of Site Plan Ex­P3 and the rent receipts Ex­P6 to Ex­P8 and the letter Ex­PW5/1. He also proved memo of appearance Ex­PW5/2.
Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 25 of pages 49 During cross examination he confirmed that the suit was disposed off on the basis of the statement of plaintiff that he will not dispossessed the defendant except the due process of law.
PW6 Sh. Inderaj Singh, LDC, Sub Registrar Asaf Ali Road also brought the summoned record and confirmed that the document mark A has been registered in their office.
PW­7 Sh. N.K. Srivastava is also a summoned witness, who proved on record Ex.P­1 i.e. the duly registered document.
PW8 Sh. A.K. Ojah proved the documents Ex­ P15.
PW9 Sh. K. P. Verma produced the municipal record pertaining of property no.I­56, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi. He deposed that as per MCD record, the property is in the name of the plaintiff and as per the inspection report of 1985, the basement and ground floor have been partly used for residential and commercial purposes. He has proved the report Ex­PW8/1, Assessment Orders Ex.PW8/2 & 3 and Rent Attachment Order Ex­PW8/4.
8. DW­1 Sh. Mohan Singh in his examination­in­chief tendered by way of affidavit Ex.DA has reiterated the contents of the Written Statement. He was also permitted to rely upon the receipts Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/I, which the the copies of receipts alleged to have been Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 26 of pages 49 issued by the plaintiff.
During cross examination he could not confirm as to whether any rent receipt was issued by the plaintiff to him on 01.07.1989 and 03.09.1982, however, he acknowledged the rent Agreement Ex.P­4 as correct which was executed in 1980. He claimed that he can not understand document Ex.P­5 but it bears his signatures. The said document was executed on behalf of M/s Adam Papers Products P. Ltd. before construction and commencement of tenancy. Since the inception of tenancy the said premises is being used by him as Managing Director of M/s Adams International Exports P. Ltd. He denied the claim that tenancy of the suit premises was created by Ex.P­5. He volunteered that the tenancy was initially verbal. The rent of tenanted premises was being paid by M/s Adams International Exports P. Ltd. for ten years but he could not tell as to who paid the said rent. He was Director of the said company but now the same has been wound up. He took the possession of the suit premises as Managing Director of M/s Adams International Exports P. Ltd. He could not tell as to whether rent paid was entered in the books of account or not. He claimed that he was maintaining the record of the payment of rent to the plaintiff for the earlier years right from the Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 27 of pages 49 inception of the tenancy but the record is not available with him. The plaintiff was occasionally issuing the rent receipt in token of rent receipt. The rent of the suit premises was Rs.3,000/­ p.m. There was no rent agreement executed when ground floor was let out by the plaintiff to him. He took the possession of ground floor from plaintiff in the year 1988­89. He denied that the whole of the premises was given by plaintiff for residential purpose. He clarified that the ground floor portion was given to him for residential purpose. The basement portion was given to him for godown purposes and the ground floor portion was given to him for residential purpose. Except the basement portion which is being used for godown purposes he has not been using any portion of the tenant premises for commercial purposes. He confirmed that he filed the suit for injunction against the plaintiff and in that case he filed the Site Plan but he could not confirm as to whether Ex.P­3 is the certified copy of the said plan filed by him in the civil suit filed in 1998. He admitted that the in the ground floor tenanted portion there are cabin room, reception room and sitting room. He claimed that he was having oral permission of the plaintiff to use the tenanted portion for commercial purposes and the said permission was given even at the time of construction of the suit property. He could not say Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 28 of pages 49 as to whether L& DO had given the lease of the suit premises to the plaintiff for residential purposes. He conceded that in 1987 DDA filed complaint against the defendant for misuse of basement u/s 14 & 29 of DD Act wherein a fine of Rs.1,000/­ was imposed against which no appeal was preferred by him. Plaintiff was not concerned with the case filed by DDA against M/s Adam International. He claimed that DDA filed two more complaints against M/s Adam Paper Product P. Ltd. and against M/s Adam International Exports Pvt. Ltd. He conceded that Ex.P27 & P28 are certified copies of the complaints and they pertain to the year 2003. Delhi Development Authority did not inspect the suit property in his presence before filing complaints in the Court at Patiala House U/s 14 & 29 DD Act. In the complaint filed by Delhi Development Authority in the year 1987 the alleged misuser of the ground floor by him was not the subject matter of the said complaint. The said complaint was related to the basement. Ex.P24 is the judgment in relation to the complaint filed by Delhi Development Authority in the year 1987. He had paid rent to the plaintiff either in cash or through cheque for the period 01.01.1989 till date, to which no rent receipt was issued by the plaintiff. After 01.01.1998 he had been regularly paying the rent to MCD. He could not tell as to which Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 29 of pages 49 rent was paid in cash and which was paid through cheque to the plaintiff for the period from 01.01.1989 to 30.09.1998 He clarified that some payment was adjusted towards the payment already made for the construction of building. Receipts were not issued as he was having cordial relations with plaintiff. He stated that no payment was made to the plaintiff through cheque for the period 01.01.1989 to 30.09.1998. He could not tell as to how much of rent in cash was paid by him to the plaintiff for the period 01.01.1989 to 30.09.1998. He also could not tell as to how much amount was adjusted towards the rent for the said period out of the advance paid by him to the plaintiff at the time of construction of the premises. The MCD had issued him rent attachment order for paying the rent to him. He stated that he had not served any notice to the plaintiff regarding non issuance of rent receipt. he did not receive notice dated 01.07.2002 Ex.P9. The address of defendants mentioned in Ex.P9 is correct. However floor has not been mentioned in both the addresses of the defendant. AD Card bearing receipt no.4785 does not bear his signature nor the signatures of his employee. He has no employee in the name of Gopal. The address of M/s Adam International on the AD card is correct. He stated that Gopal is employed by him as cook at home but Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 30 of pages 49 he has left his service long back. He has not denied receipt of notice in his Written Statement. MCD officials did not visit the tenanted premises in his presence at any point of time. He could not tell as to whether MCD had increased the house tax of the tenancy premises due to the misuser of the tenancy premises for commercial purpose. He also could not tell as to whether L& DO had refused to convert the premises from lease hold to free hold on the ground of misuse for commercial purpose by him. He conceded that as per lease agreement Ex.P4 & P5 there was permission to use the basement for residential purpose only. The defendants have not given any notice to the plaintiff regarding expiry of the lease agreement. The terms of letting as mentioned in lease agreement Ex.P5 are correct. Lease agreement Ex.P5 was signed by him on behalf of M/s Adam Papers Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff never asked the defendant to pay the rent as per lease agreement and the defendants have not made payment as per lease agreement Ex.P5. The possession of premises involved in Ex.P5 was taken by him as Managing Director of M/s Adam International Export Pvt. Ltd. and not as MD of M/s Adam Papers Pvt. Ltd. He denied that the premises under tenancy was let out to him in his personal capacity. He could not tell as to whether proceedings U/s Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 31 of pages 49 107/151 Cr.P.C took place between him and the plaintiff in connection with name plates fixed by him in the tenanted premises. He could not tell the address at which he obtained his passport. The premises i.e. I­25, IIIrd Flor, Lajpat Nagar­III, New Delhi was guest house of defendant no.1. He resided at E­222, East of Kailash, New Delhi for some time. E­222, East of Kailash, New Delhi had been under tenancy of defendant no.1 from 1979 to 1998. He could not tell as to whether the premises bearing no.125, Lajpat Nagar­III, New Delhi was under their tenancy and possession when the notice dated 01.07.2002 was served. He claimed that he has never visited house no.4, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi. He could not tell as to whether rent of ground floor of house no.4, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar­ II, New Delhi measuring 1540 sq. feet is Rs.18,250/­ excluding fixer charges of Rs.2300/­ per month. House no.B­25, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi has never been visited by him. He could not tell as to rent of 1000 fq. ft. of the aforesaid house is Rs.33,000/­ per month. He has not seen house no.O­22, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi and as such could not tell as to monthly rent of 150 sq. yds. of the basement of said house is Rs.60,000/­ per month. He had not made any inquiries regarding the market rent of the premises similar to that of the suit Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 32 of pages 49 premises in the neighbourhood of the suit premises. He conceded that the electricity authority had disconnected the electricity of the tenanted premises, which was disconnected on 10.03.2004.
DW­2 Sh. Yashpal is the summoned witness, who brought the records pertaining to the registration of the company ADAM International Exports P. Ltd. and proved on record the photocopy of certificate of incorporation dated 21.09.1981 as Ex.DW1/A. He testified that as per their record the company's address is E­222, East of Kailash, New Delhi and proved on record the copy of certificate of Form No.18 showing the registered office of the company as Ex.DW1/B. He also testified that the procedure for changing the address of the registered office of the company is by filing Form­18 and there is no need of filing of resolution of board of director in this regard.
During cross examination he stated that their record, from the annual return dated 30.09.2005 which was filed in their office on 26.11.2005, copy of which is Ex.DW2/C, shows that the registered office of the above company is I­56, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The said company never submitted any Form No.18 through which the registered office of the company is changed and intimated to their Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 33 of pages 49 office. No resolution of the Board of Director regarding the change of the registered office of the company was submitted to them at any point of time.
DW­3 Sh. Kamal is the summoned witness, who brought the summoned record and deposed that as per the record, FIR bearing no.280/92 was registered in PS Chitteranjan Park U/s 324/452 IPC against Mr. Vishan Dass Narang S/o Late Sh. C.R. Narang, R/o M­ 22, G.K. Part­II, New Delhi. The said case has been disposed off by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 09.03.2007 vide which accused Mr. Vishan Dass Narang has been acquitted. He further deposed that the said case has been disposed of in view of the understanding arrived at between the complainant and the accused before the Hon'ble High Court.
He also brought the case file of FIR bearing no.88/1994 of PS C.R. Park under Sec.324/452/336/427/34 IPC in which accused Vishan Dass Narang S/o Late Sh. Chaman Ram, R/o I­56, Lajpat Nagar­2, and Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Vishan Dass, Smt. Ram Pyari W/o Sh. Vishan Dass and Smt. Saroj W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, faced trial and this case has also been disposed off by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 09.03.2007, in view of the order of Hon'ble High Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 34 of pages 49 Court, where some understanding arrived between the accused persons and the complainant.
He also brought the case file of FIR bearing no.370/95 of PS CR Park under Sec.451/506 IPC, in which accused Vishan Dass S/o Sh. Chimna Ram and Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Vishan Dass, both R/o I­56, Lajpat Nagar­II, faced trial. This case has also been disposed off by Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 09.03.2007 in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, where some understanding arrived at between the complainant and the accused persons.
He also brought the case file pertaining to FIR No.334/94 of PS C.R. Park under Sec.364A/365/320B/34 IPC, in which accused Vishan Dass Narang and Sh. Ashok Kumar, both R/o M­22, First Floor, GK Part­II, New Delhi faced trial. This case has been disposed off by the Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 09.03.2007 in view of the order of Hon'ble High Court.
During cross examination he stated that he has no personal knowledge regarding the facts of the above cases and he has no knowledge regarding the addresses of the person given by him in his examination­in­chief. He conceded that the Hon'ble High Court has acquitted and quashed the proceedings of above mentioned criminal Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 35 of pages 49 cases and has acquitted the accused persons of all above mentioned criminal cases. He stated that he has not filed any document from the files of the above criminal cases and in fact he was not asked to file any document/order of the above criminal cases. He further stated that he has seen the status reports dated 14.09.2001 & 20.02.2002 in the case file of FIR No.334/94 and Ex.D.3 & Ex.D.3.2 are the certified copies of the said orders.
DW­4 Sh. Pushkar Rajwar, the then Asst. Ahlmad of the Court of Sh. S.P. Garg, the then Ld.ASJ, Delhi, brought the case file pertaining to FIR bearing no.887/98 of PS Lajpat Nagar U/s 376/366/ 363 IPC. He proved on record the charge framed by the Hon'ble High Court against the accused persons as Ex.DW4/A and statement of PW­1 as Ex.DW4/B. During cross examination he stated that the document Ex.DW4/B was not placed on record in his presence nor the charge was framed in his presence. He proved on record the photocopies of Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/D from the summoned file as Ex.DW4/PX & Ex.DW4/PY respectively. He also proved on record the photocopies of statement of CW Dr. Sunil Diwani, blood report conducted by CW, report of blood sample submitted by Dr. D.K. Sharma, report Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 36 of pages 49 regarding blood ground submitted by Dr. Usha Gupta and letter mark­1 (consisting of 5 pages) from the summoned file as Ex.DW4/PZ1, Ex.DW4/PZ2, Ex.DW4/PZ3, Ex.DW4/PZ4 and Ex.DW4/PZ5 respectively.
DW­5 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, the then Ahlmad of the Court of Sh. V.K. Rai, has deposed in his testimony that file of the case titled as M/s Adam International Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V.D. Narang was disposed by the Court of Sh. V.K. Rai by its order dated 03.07.2004 and the file was consigned to Record Room vide Ghoswara No.1013/ND.
DW­6 Sh. Bhoop Singh has testified that the letter dated 02.07.2007 Ex.DW6/A has been prepared by Smt. Raj Manchandani and she has signed the same at point A. During cross examination he stated that he had seen the original record on the basis of which Ex.DW6/A was prepared but he has no personal knowledge regarding the Gas Connection in question. He further stated that he has never visited the suit premises. The record in the Gas Connection is maintained in the office situated at premises no.A­178/15, Daya Nand Colony, New Delhi.
Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 37 of pages 49 DW­7 Sh. Rameshwar Parsad is a summoned witness, who brought the summoned record of suit no.420/98 titled as Adam International Vs. V.D. Narang decided on 03.07.2001 by the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. Application u/s 151 CPC dated 28.02.2001 filed on 23.03.2001 is Mark A. List of the documents filed by M/s Adam International on 10.09.2001 alongwith photocopies of 15 rent receipts are Mark B1 to B16.
During cross examination he conceded that Mark B­2 to B­16 are the photocopies of the documents on the file brought by him.
DW­8 Sh. S.K. Arya is the summoned witness, who brought the summoned record i.e. the voter list pertaining to the house no.I­ 56, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi­24 and stated that as per their record available since 25.11.2007, the name of Mohan Singh S/o Balwant Singh aged 46 years old EPIC No.KKM0945550 is mentioned as Sl. No.366 and as per their record the said name stands deleted as per the special revision conducted between 25.11.2007 till 16.12.2007. He could not tell as to how his name was deleted.
During cross examination he admitted that the election office had notified that the persons whose name has not been listed as voters, can apply for the same during the period from 21.01.2008 to Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 38 of pages 49 05.02.2008. Mohan Singh and his wife Anjali Singh had applied to register them as voter from premises no.I­56, Lajpat Nagar­II, Delhi, There applications are Ex.DW8/P1 & P2. He brought the original of those documents. He further stated that on receipt of said applications an enquiry was conducted by the booth level officer and on the basis of the same, he gave his report which is on first page of Ex.PW8/P1 and Ex.PW8/P2 and the report has been encircled as D & D1. He identified the signature of Sh. Lallan Singh, ERO AC­V. He brought the original complaint lodged by the plaintiff Ex.DW8/P3. Vide order dated 04.03.2008, AER AC­V, and another booth level office AC­V was directed to enquire about the Mohan Singh and Anjali Singh as to whether they are resident of K­28, IIIrd Floor, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi. He proved the copy of order and the report of booth level officers Ex.PW8/P4 & P5. He brought the copy of the final voter list Ex.DW8/P6.
DW­9 Lekh Raj brought the summoned record pertaining to Assessment File and Deposit record in respect of property no.I­56, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi mentioned in ledger folio no.504/99. He stated that the property stands assessed in the name of Vishan Dass Narang as per the record of MCD. He brought the Statement of Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 39 of pages 49 Account pertaining to the payment of property tax since Oct,1998 till March, 2007. He brought the photocopies of the ledger Ex.DW9/A running into seven pages. He stated that regarding the payment of tax attached there is no entry in the record brought by him.
During cross examination, he stated that whenever any payment is made towards the payment of property tax, the MCD issues the receipt to that effect and the MCD also issued the receipt of above payment. Ex.DW9/A has not been written by him nor maintained by him, as the same is the official record wherein the entries are made on the basis of the receipts issued to the tax payers. No rent Agreement by M/s Adams International Exports Pvt. Ltd. has been filed by the tenant on their record. However, the rent was attached after inspection of the property by the Inspector concerned. He could not tell as to whether tenant is using the suit property for commercial purpose. The assessment of entire property is since 1988 at RV of Rs.1,73,800/­. There is no order dated 27.09.2004 passed by Asst. Assessor and Collector South Zone­II and the record brought by him revealed that a property tax of Rs50640/­ per year is payable by the tenant. The said document was found available as Ex.DW9/P3. The department in which he is working does not fall Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 40 of pages 49 under the Administration of Asst. Commissioner Central zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, rather, the same is under Assessor and Collector MCD.
DW­10 Sh. K.R. Maurya confirmed that he passed the attachment order in respect of the house tax due of the properties and his predecessor passed a rent attachment order dated 16.09.1998 in respect of the property in question. The attachment order was issued in the name of defendant herein. As per the order mentioned above the amount due till the period ending on 31.03.1996 was Rs.6,36,070/­. The photocopy of rent attachment order is Mark defendant no.1. A sum of Rs.6,92,201/­ excluding interest was due in respect of the property in question as per the statement of account.
During cross examination he conceded that he had not seen Mohan Singh in his office. He did not issue the warrants. He conceded that the order dated 02.06.1991 was an exparte order as the plaintiff did not appear despite of number of notices. He denied the suggestion that the order was not on merits and he clarified that since the parties had not come, so they were to proceed accordingly. He admitted that the commercial establishment are to be charged on the basis of the assessment on the basis of commercial value. He Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 41 of pages 49 could not tell as to what assessment has been made qua the ratable value of the property in question. He conceded that the house tax of the suit property was levied on commercial basis vide order dated 27.09.2004 Ex.P­3. He admitted that the suit property continued to be assessed for the house tax basis on commercial basis till January, 2009. He could not tell if house in question is a residential house and the house tax used to be assessed on residential basis earlier. He admitted that as per the record, the defendant is using the premises for commercial purposes. He has no personal knowledge as he has not seen any document with his eyes.
9. I have carefully heard the rival submissions of Ld. counsels for the parties. I have also perused the entire material placed before me.
10. My issue wise findings are as under:­
11. Since issue no.2 is the core issue, so I will take the same prior to the other issues.
12. ISSUE No.2:­ Whether the suit is barred U/s 50 of DRC Act ? OPD.
The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the defendants.
In their Written Statement, the defendants no.1 & 2 have raised Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 42 of pages 49 a preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiff is barred U/s 50 of DRC Act as the rate of rent is only Rs.3,000/­ p.m and is covered under the DRC Act.
No replication to the Written Statement of defendants has been filed by the plaintiff to rebut the said claim of the defendants.
As per Ld. counsel for the defendants, the plaintiff has not filed this suit with clean hands and has suppressed facts and figures from the Court at the time of filing of this suit in 2003 and than in his examination­in­chief as PW­1 on 22.02.2005. The plaintiff was all the time in knowledge of the actual rent being paid by the defendant to the plaintiff i.e. Rs.3,000/­ per month cumulatively in respect of three tenanted portions at Rs.1,000/­ for each portion comprising of two basements and one ground floor and as such suit is hit by the provisions of Sec.50 of DRC Act.
Per contra, according to Ld. counsel for plaintiff the present suit is not hit by the provisions of Sec.50 of DRC Act and same is perfectly maintainable before this Court.
Having heard the rival submissions of Ld. counsels for the parties, I find that there is substance in the claim of defendant.
Before filing of this suit, the plaintiff was the party/defendant in Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 43 of pages 49 the civil suit no.420/98 and has examined PW/5, the rent/advance receipts are Ex.P­6 to Ex.P­8, rent attachment notice of MCD as PW­9 were produced and exhibited by the plaintiff himself. This shows that the plaintiff was in the knowledge of attachment of rent by the MCD and was in knowledge that rent of Rs.3,000/­ cumulatively in respect of two basements and one ground floor being deposited by the defendant to the MCD since October, 1998 but preferred not to disclose these fact in the present suit. The perusal of testimony of DW­7 (who brought the record of Civil Suit No.420/98) alongwith the photocopies of the original application dated 23.03.2001 moved by the plaintiff in that suit and rent receipts of Rs.3,000/­ each for two basement and one ground floor Marked as A & B­1 to B­16, shows that the plaintiff was not paying and has never paid house tax to the MCD since the construction of the house. As a matter of fact, the tenanted portions was admittedly let out to the applicant at three different stages and the instant single suit for the recovery of all the three tenanted portions is not maintainable as there has to be three different cause of action in respect of all the three different portions. Since the plaintiff has combined all the three tenanted portions for which rent is Rs.1,000/­ each per month in a single suit for recovery, Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 44 of pages 49 so the same is not maintainable being barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act.
The relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant is not in dispute. Further as per his own, the rent of all the above mentioned three portions was not more than Rs.3,000/­ per month and in his evidence no documentary material has been placed on record thereby showing that the rent was further enhanced. The relations of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and rent being only Rs.3,000/­ per month for three portions is also established in para 1 and para 3 of legal notice dated 24.04.2000 relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.PW­10. As such, there exists no proof for increase of rent at any point of time except the present suit where in para 9, he is claiming arrears of rent for the period from 01.08.1999 to 31.03.2000 at the rate of Rs.60,000/­ per month which is misplaced and have no basis. The plaintiff has relied on a Rent Agreement dated 03.09.1982 Ex.P­5 which pertains to only one portion i.e. basement to be constructed in future and not to other tenanted portions and was signed and company seal was affixed on behalf of Adams Paper Products Ltd. The cheque issued therein as an advance to construct the basement was from Adams Paper Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 45 of pages 49 Products P. Ltd. account. Even the said Rent Agreement can not be considered to be an evidence as the same was insufficiently stamped and the same is not admissible as evidence or for any other purposes as required U/s 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Thus the contents and sub clauses of the said agreement does not lend any support to the claim of the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the said agreement was only for three years and same got expired on 02.09.1985. Since than till date, there is no proof of extending the said agreement or acting upon the terms and conditions in any way. On the other hand plaintiff himself relied upon a rent receipt Ex.P­8 whereby rent @ Rs.1,000/­ per month was shown to be received from Adams International for Basement signed by the plaintiff on 28.10.1988 and the use of the basement was written as "for godown purposes only". Use of the basement is also established in his examination­in­chief as PW­1 has stated that "the defendant was not residing in the basement and it was let out for godown purpose". Significantly, at the time of execution of this agreement, the tenanted portion was not in existence and was suppose to be constructed and than tenancy was to be resumed in the basement portion. Even otherwise, the plea of the plaintiff regarding the increase of rent as mentioned in clause 13 Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 46 of pages 49 of the agreement Ex.P­5 stands further exposed by receipt Ex.DW1/1 for Rs.4,000/­ in respect of the basement of the property bearing no. II­I/56, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 110024 for the month of August to November, 1988. It is also an admitted fact that after completion of construction and at the time of handing over possession no written agreement was entered in between plaintiff and the defendant. Admittedly, the plaintiff has given notice dated 24.04.2000 and the said notice has been proved on record as Ex.PW­10. In the said notice the plaintiff has claimed the rent @ Rs.3,000/­ per month and has nowhere mentioned that the rate of rent is higher than that.
The aforesaid discussion clearly establishes that the suit of the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Sec.50 of DRC Act and can only be tried and dealt only under the provisions of DRC Act and as such, the same is liable for dismissal.
13. ISSUE No.1:­ Whether the suit is bad for mis­joinder of the parties? OPD.

    ISSUE No.3:­

    Whether there is no cause of action?                               OPD. 

    ISSUE No.4:­
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession as prayed for? OPP.
Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 47 of pages 49 ISSUE No.5:­ Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mesne profit/damages as prayed for ? OPP.
ISSUE No.6:­ Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim rent as prayed for?
OPP.
Since the suit of the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Sec.50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, so there is not need to given findings on these issues.
14. RELIEF:­ In view of my findings on the issue no.2, suit of the plaintiff is liable for dismissal and same stands dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost.
15. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities. 
(Announced in the open court                     (RAKESH KUMAR)
today on 30.09.2011)                                    ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE­03 (C) 
                                                                           DELHI
Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 48 of pages 49 Suit No.291/2008 Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors. 

30.09.2011

Present:            As before.
Vide a separate judgment, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ADJ­03(C)/DELHI/30.09.2011 Sh. Vishan Dass Narang Vs. M/s Adams Inter. Exports P. Ltd. & Ors.(Suit No.291/08) Page No. 49 of pages 49