Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This suit for recovery of rent , mesne profit, occupation charges and causing substantial damage to flat No. 205 A, AVG Bhawan , M-3, Middle Circle , Connaught Place, New Delhi by bringing about structural changes / alteration , against the Defendant claiming himself to be the owner / landlord of flat, Defendant No. 1 to be its erstwhile tenant and Defendant No. 2 to be the erstwhile unauthorized sub-tenant. It is avered that Defendant No. 1 and Sh. Preetipal Singh were joint tenants of suit flat. They had failed to take or tender rent thereof from 01.06.83.

Defendants during operation of Court injunction orders. By the structural changes and substantial damage to the property Defendants have caused a loss of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserved his right to file proceedings for recovery of electricity, maintenance and other charges in respect of the suit flat after ascertaining the same. He had served demand notice dated 23.05.02 on the Defendant which they failed to comply with. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,44,776/- with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum.

6. According to Defendants the Plaintiff used to visit and inspect the property quite frequently and whatever changes therein were carried out had his consent. Plaintiff having relinquished his rights to rake up the question under ..6..

DRC Act, is precluded from raising it in these proceedings. The Plaintiff immediately on disposal of appeal by Ld. Rent Control Tribunal on 06.05.02, without sending any notice of execution to the Defendant, got over the suit flat, ransacked the furniture and office articles of Defendant and damage the property in collusion with bailiff. It has been denied that Defendant has caused any structural changes or damage and therefore, he owe no liability to pay therefore. It is contended that Plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit which is liable to be dismissed with cost.

1. Naturally it clouds the sanctity of report Ex. PW 2/1 to a great extent.

23. The report of Architect is silent as to whether the suit flat had been kept in the state of regular repairs and whitewash / paint. He has also not given concession for ..16..

normal wear and tear in the flat by the user of Defendants for a period of 10 years. The report is further mum as to whether the structural changes purportedly brought about by the Defendant to the suit flat were in fact improvements and renovations to make it habitable/ more convenient.