Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
DISTRICT JUDGE – 07, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 1247/23
CNR NO. DLCT01-016147-2023
In the matter of:
Sher Bahadur
S/o Sh. Ram Khelawan
R/o B-1300, Block B, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052
….. Plaintiff
V E R S U S
1. Hariom
R/o 2nd Floor, Municipal No. B-1390,
Old Plot No. 7A, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052
2. Sh. Akash
S/o Late Sh. Vijay Kumar
R/o 559/39, Omkar Nagar,
C-Block, Delhi-110035
Both are Also At: Shop No.1, Ground Floor,
Municipal No. B-1390,
Old Plot No. 7A, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052
….. Defendants
Date of Institution : 09.11.2023
Arguments concluded : 23.09.2024
Date of decision : 23.09.2024
Result : Partly decreed
CS No. 1247/23
	Page No. 1 of 4
Sher Bahadur vs. Hariom & Anr.
-- 1 of 4 --
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF
ARREARS OF RENT ALONG WITH DAMAGES/MESNE PROFIT
AND INJUNCTION
J U D G M E N T (as per Order 8 Rule 10 CPC)
Suit in brief
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the
defendants on the ground that the plaintiff had purchased the property i.e.
Shop No. 1 and 2 on the ground floor without roof rights of portion of
Freehold Built-Up property bearing Municipal No. B-1390, built on portion
of Old Plot No. 7A, Situated at Shashtri Nagar, Delhi-110052 (aprrox
measuring 18 sq. meters) vide sale deed dated 14.11.2022. It is alleged that
at the time of purchasing said suit property, the shop no. 1 on the ground
floor (approx area measuring 09 sq. meter) (hereinafter referred to as 'suit
property') was in the tenancy of defendant no.2 and previous owner Sh.
Vineet Kumar issued notice dated 31.08.2023 to the Defendant no.2 to
vacate the said premises but he did not vacate the said property. It is
alleged that plaintiff also requested the defendant to pay the rent and vacate
the property but he failed to do so and in the month of August, 2023,
defendant no.2 vacated the suit property by giving keys and possession of
the property to the defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 renovated the suit
property without consent of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a
legal notice-cum-reminder of earlier notice on 05.09.2023 for termination
of the tenancy and demanded arrears of rent from both the defendants.
CS No. 1247/23
	Page No. 2 of 4
Sher Bahadur vs. Hariom & Anr.
-- 2 of 4 --
2. From the previous order sheets, it is revealed that Counsel for
the defendant no.1 had appeared on the previous dates of hearing which
shows that the defendant no.1 was well aware of the present suit but
despite giving ample opportunities, no WS has been filed by him and the
period of limitation already expired. Accordingly, his right to file WS is
closed. Summons issued to the defendant no.2 earlier received with the
report
‘refused’ and it was treated as due service but defendant no.2 did not
appear before this court. Accordingly, right of defendant no.2 to file WS is
also closed. Both the defendants are proceeded ex-parte also.
3. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff states that a judgment can be
passed straightway as per Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Accordingly, arguments
heard from Sh. M.P.S. Kasana with Sh. Shubham Kumar, Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff as per Order 8 Rule 10 CPC on the point of passing of
judgment straightway and gone through the record.
4. The plaintiff has filed various material documents i.e. site
plan, copy of legal notice dated 31.08.2023, copy of sale deed dated
14.11.2022, copy of legal notice (reminder) dated 05.09.2023, etc.
5. In the absence of any defence/WS of the defendants, there is
noting on record to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff which is based on
documentary evidence. Moreover, as per Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, when the
defendant fails to file the WS within the time permitted or fixed by the
Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him,
CS No. 1247/23
	Page No. 3 of 4
Sher Bahadur vs. Hariom & Anr.
-- 3 of 4 --
or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the
pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. For a ready
reference, Order 8 Rule 10 CPC is reproduced as under:
“
Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for
by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is
required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the
time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court
shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in
relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such
judgment a decree shall be drawn up:]
6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff
is partly decreed for recovery of possession of the suit property i.e. Shop
No.1 on the ground floor, Freehold Built-Up property bearing Municipal
No. B-1390, Built on portion of Old Plot No. 7A, Situated at Shashtri
Nagar, Delhi-110052 against both defendants. Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly.
7. However, this court is of the considered opinion that the
matter requires evidence and trial for remaining reliefs. Accordingly, put up
for ex-parte PE on 07.12.2024.
Announced & dictated in
the open court on 23.09.2024
(Naresh Kumar Laka)
District Judge-07
Central District
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
CS No. 1247/23
	Page No. 4 of 4
Sher Bahadur vs. Hariom & Anr.
-- 4 of 4 --