Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(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.