Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Garg vs Sh. R K Madhwani on 15 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE - 01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
Suit No. 4/14
Unique ID : 02403C0000092014
Sanjeev Garg
S/o. Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o. 8, Arihant Nagar
Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi - 110 006
......... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. R K Madhwani
S/o. Late Sh. Kishan Chand
R/o. B 1/384, Top Floor,
Janak Puri, New Delhi 110 058
Also At:
Flat No. 2, Narmada Block
Tower 3, Pocket 6, Sector D
Vasant Kunj,
New Dehi 110 070
...... Defendant
Appearance :
Sh. Manish Gupta, Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Rohit Malik, Counsel for defendant.
JUDGMENT :
1 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, arrears of rent , mense profit , damages and permanent injunction qua the suit property i.e. flat no. 2, Narmada Block, Tower 3, Pocket 6, Sector D , Vasant Kunj, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with plaint (herein referred as suit property).
Suit no. 04/14 Page no. 1 of 5
2. Brief facts as epitomized in plaint are that suit of the plaintiff is based upon rent agreement dt. 11.10.2013. The defendant was inducted as tenant in suit property for limited period of eleven months on monthly rent of Rs. 27,000/ payable in advance by 7th day of each English calender month w.e.f 1.10.2013, exclusive of all other charges, such as electricity, water , maintenance charges, taxes etc. The suit property was let out for residential purposes. The defendant in compliance of the terms and conditions of the rent agreement paid a sum of Rs. 27,000/ as interest free security which was to be refunded at the time of vacation of the suit property by the defendant and taking over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property by the plaintiff.
3 The grievance of the plaintiff is that despite repeated requests the defendant since the inception of tenancy failed to pay monthly rent. The defendant has also started misusing the property for commercial purpose without permission of plaintiff against the terms and conditions of rent agreement.
4 Further, contention of the plaintiff is that vide notice dated 19.011.2013 sent through counsel under speed post AD, the defendant was asked to vacate the suit property by the mid night of 30.11.2013. The tenancy of defendant was terminated requesting the defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant did not comply to the same and failed to deliver the possession. The plaintiff further contended that rent of the suit property was Rs.27,000/ and rent is due with effect from October 2013 till date.
Suit no. 04/14 Page no. 2 of 5 5 The defendant put appearance and filed written statement
inter alia submitted that he is engaged in business of Interior Designing and Decorators for the last 20 years. He was searching for a suitable place for above said business and approached some property dealers. One Rajender Associates who later became mediator to finalize the deal between plaintiff and defendant informed about suit property and with the help of that mediator , the defendant took suit property for rent for commercial purposes on 09.11.2013 from the plaintiff and acknowledged the rent agreement dt. 11.10.2013 which was duly notarized on 11.10.2013 with consent of both the parties. Plaintiff kept the original copy with him and gave one copy to defendant on 14.10.2013 and defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 10,450/ for the period of 20.10.2013 to 31.10.2013 and paid Rs. 27,000/ for month of November 2013 in advance, however despite request, receipt was not given.
6 After filing of written statement on behalf of defendant, the plaintiff has moved an application u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC which have come up for arguments and disposal for passing of a decree of possession in view of unambiguous and unequivocal admission of the defendant in written statement.
7 Ld. counsel for plaintiff argued that in written statement, the defendant has admitted that execution of rent agreement dt. 11.10.2013 which was executed between the parties. The defendant has also admitted the rate of rent as Rs. 27,000/ and also admitted that he is arrears of rent with effect from November 2013 although the Suit no. 04/14 Page no. 3 of 5 plaintiff has claimed from October 2013. As per clause X and XI of rent agreement, landlord has a right to give one month notice in advance to the tenant before getting the premises vacated and also on non payment of rent, tenant shall be liable for ejectment of premises. In view of clear and unambiguous admission by defendant, plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of suit property.
8 Reply to aforesaid application not filed by defendant.
9 I have heard the submissions addressed by Ld. counsels for parties and perused the record carefully.
10 To obtain a decree of possession of suit property under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, there are three necessary ingredients which have to be established by plaintiff/landlord i.e. (i) relationship of landlordtenant has to be proved (ii) rent is more than Rs.3500/ and
(iii) tenancy has been validly terminated.
11 Ld. counsel for plaintiff has drawn attention of the court to the submissions made in the written statement filed by defendant. Defendant in para no. 3 of parawise reply has specifically pleaded and same is reproduced as under :
"That the contents of the paragraph are correct to the extent that defendant has took the suit property on rent from plaintiff for the limited period of 11 months only, on a monthly rent of Rs. 27,000/ and the remaining are wrong and denied . Defendant took the suit property on the rent from the plaintiff for commercial as well as residental purpose. The rent was payable in advance by 7th day of each English calender month w.e.f 01.11.2013."
Suit no. 04/14 Page no. 4 of 5 12 It transpires from the above that the defendant admitted
to be tenant in suit premises . There is a written rent agreement between parties to the suit duly executed on stamp paper photocopy of which has been placed on record by the plaintiff. In the case of Gautam Swaroop Vs Leela Jetly and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 85 it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that a thing admitted in view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act need not be proved.
13 Given the facts of this case, the necessary requirement for passing the decree in favour of plaintiff exists loud clear. There is no specific denial of averment of plaint. The termination of tenant landlord relationship is substantiated by its legal notice which as per catena of judgments of the Superior Courts is not required to be proved only at trial, if it is supported by its original postal record. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to decree for possession in respect of the suit premises at this stage itself under the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Under such circumstances, there is nothing left to be proved through trial. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore decreed for possession against the defendant in respect of the suit property ie. flat no. 2, Narmada Block, Tower 3, Pocket 6, Sector D , Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Decree sheet be prepared.
Pronounced on 15.05.2014 (VINEETA GOYAL)
Additional District Judge1
New Delhi District : PHC
New Delhi : 15.05.2014
Suit no. 04/14 Page no. 5 of 5