Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

THE PETITION:-

2. As per the petition, it is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted shop was let out by the previous land-lord / owner. That the tenant/respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2004 to 01.06.2010 @ Rs. 121-p/m total Rs.9398/- (Rupees nine thousand three hundred ninety eight only) up to the period of notice and has not further paid the rent despite of notice sent u/S 106 of TP Act and sent a vague and false reply. The petitioner becomes owner and landlord of property bearing No. 1738, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi-6 having purchased through their lawful attorney vide sale deed dated 11.04.1990 which was registered as a document No. 2042 in the Additional Book No. 1 Volume No. 5261 pages 54 to 59 dated 12.04.1990 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. That the defendant is a tenant in respect of one shop shown in (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 2 of 25 27.11.2025 VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date: 2025.11.27 AGARWAL 14:35:18 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN red colour in the site plan and the defendant was paying the rent to the previous owner/landlord vide valid receipt. That the premises in question is commercial and the shop exists on the ground only which have no concern with the roof of the shop nor the said roots are having any concern with the tenant. It is submitted that there are five shops in numbers in the said property of tenanted premises and except one shops the tenant have no concern with the roof nor the roof from the tenancy right at all. That the petitioner sent the intimation regarding the purchase of the property and the tenants are now legally bound to pay the rent to the petitioner and the petitioner is legally entitled to receive the rent from them. That as the roofs are not forming the part of the tenancy of any of the tenant and hence the tenant does not have any right to use the roof or to put any goods on the shop which is the property of the plaintiff. That the defendant in order to grab the shop illegally encroached the staircase towards the roof and without any justified cause or reason he is putting the Kabar on the roof and is illegally occupying the same. That there are litigations going between the parties and on many occasion the petitioner made a request to the defendant to vacate the portion of roof by removing his Kabar items which are lying on the roof but the defendant with the sole intention of grabbing the same is not removing the goods. That the defendant who is a tenant on the ground floor in respect of one shop measuring 6 x18' and apart from the aforesaid portion the defendant has no tight on the other portion as the same are not farming the part (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 3 of 25 Digitally signed by 27.11.2025 VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:

EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER:-

4. To prove its case, petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and tendered his documents i.e. the registered sale deed dt. 12.04.1990 as Ex PW- 1/1, the copy of notice dt. 23.11.2011 as Ex. PW1/5, the compromise deed dt.10.12.2011 as Ex. PW1/6, statement recorded before the court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor CJ Delhi as Ex.PW1/7, the copy of slum order dt. 15.04.2010 as Ex. PW1/8. the site plan as Ex. PW1/9, certified copy of order of suit for recovery from court of Sh. L.K. Gaur, Ld. CJ, Delhi is Ex. PW1/10, certified copy of order dt. 19.04.1999 of the court of Sh. S.N.Dhingra, Ld.ADJ, Delhi as Ex. PW1/11, order dt. 25.07.2002 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as Ex.PW1/12, copy of order of conviction of respondent u/S 448 IPC as Ex.PW1/13, legal notice dt. 11.05.2010 as Ex.PW1/14 and reply of respondent to legal notice as Ex.PW1/15. Then PW1 was cross- examined. After that PW-2 Sh. Devender Singh, Link Mauza Clerk Record Room Criminal, THC, who produced the certified copy of the judgment already Ex. PW1/13. Thereafter Sh. Vijender (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 9 of 25 Digitally 27.11.2025 signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:

(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 20 of 25 27.11.2025 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:36:41 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN It was further report by the Nazir that there was one delay on the part of the respondent that the rent for the period of July 2020 to June 2021 was deposited on 28.09.2020. accordingly, the respondent certainly failed to deposit the rent for the period of July 2020 and August 2020 in the period of 15 days of the succeeding month, in terms of order dt. 01.03.2012. In this regard, it was submitted by the ld. Counsel for the respondent that said delay was caused during the period of Covid-19 and there was extention of limitation by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of In Re:Cognizance for Extention of Limitation and accordingly the said delay should not be considered against the respondent.

(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.11.2025 VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 
 AGARWAL            2025.11.27
                                                      14:37:19 +0530




                                                   (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)