Ravinder Parkash Punj vs Neeraj Aggarwal on 31 October, 2022
41. Ld. Counsel further argued that there is no admission on
the part of the defendant as alleged. Ld. Counsel stated that
the plaintiff illegally dispossessed the defendant from the
suit property by breaking open the lock of the property and
putting his own lock and illegally restrained the defendant
from using the tenanted premises. Rather, there was an
admission in the plaint that defendant is tenant in the entire
basement i.e. the suit property as shown red in the site plan
filed by defendant no. 1. Ld. Counsel submitted that the
plaintiff has misused the process of law. Ld. Counsel stated
that the plaintiff because of malafide intention did not file
the site plan along with the suit. Ld. Counsel stated that
defendant in his written statement has stated the rate of rent
as Rs. 2000/- per month, which he has paid till December
2020. Ld. Counsel stated that for about 6-7 years, defendant
has not been making ice cubes on the machine installed in
the basement as his brother has installed a plant at Noida,
from where, defendant no. 1 has been purchasing the ice
cubes. Ld. Counsel submitted that Sh. V. P. Punj had taken
pagri of Rs. 5.0 lakhs from the father of the defendant at the
time of letting out the premises and the documents filed by
the plaintiff subsequent to filing of suit are false and
fabricated. Ld. Counsel submitted that no notice dated
17.02.2012 was served on defendant no. 2, so there was no
question of his refusal.