Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.64 seconds)
Smt. Anita Arora W/O Sh. Manoj Kumar ... vs Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla D/O Sh. J.S. Bhalla on 6 May, 2014
cites
Deepak Thirwani And Anr vs Lachman Das Mansharmani on 26 August, 2013
(iv) In the present suit as per plaintiff, plaintiff has let out the suit
property i.e property No. J5/49, First Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
consisting of two rooms set to the defendant at the monthly rent of Rs.
5,500/ on 02.01.2009 and time was mutually extended by mutual
settlement till 30.11.2011 but defendant failed to vacate the suit property
even after elapse of agreed time and plaintiff served a legal notice dated
03.09.2012 upon the defendant to vacate the property and defendant sent
the reply dated 17.10.2012 but failed to vacate the suit property. Hence, the
present suit. It is also argued on behalf of the plaintiff that admittedly rent
agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant and notice of
termination of tenancy was also served upon the defendant and rate of rent
Suit No. 284/12 Anita Arora Vs. Sangeta Bhalla Page No.11/23
is Rs. 20,000/ per month, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
possession. Further, defence of defendant is that the defendant is tenant of
J5/49A, and not of J5/49 is not tenable as J5/49A and J5/49 are two
different properties. Further, during examination, defendant has admitted
the case of the plaintiff and defendant has produced one neighbor as DW2
but he has not deposed on the basis of any government record and the
same is irrelevant being hearsay evidence. Further, defendant has not
brought any government record to show that house number of the property
in possession of defendant is J5/49A. Further, plaintiff has relied upon the
judgments i.e Deepak Thirwani and another Vs. Lachman Das Man,
2013 (137) DRJ 355 and Vijay Gupta Vs. Manoj Mehta, 156(2009)
Delhi Law Times 666.
Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd vs Basant Khatri on 5 March, 2012
(iv) Thus, it is clear that the defendant has taken contradictory
plea in the reply Ex. PW1/9 and in the WS and in the cross examination
and, therefore, the plea of the defendant seems improbable and and it can
be concluded that plaintiff has proved that the defendant has not paid rent
since 01.12.2011 and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent since
01.12.2011. As far as the rate of rent is concerned, admittedly, as per last
rent agreement dated 02.01.2009, the rate of rent was Rs. 5,500/ per
month. At this stage, it is relevant to discuss the judgment Shriram
Pistons & Rings Ltd Vs. Basant Khatri, 190(2002) Delhi Law Times
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1