Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 24
Civ Suit 54/24
SANDHYA GOLA Vs. VED PRAKASH GUPTA
03.06.2025
Matter taken up physically as well as through VC.
Present: Sh. Sunil K.Kalra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
An application filed under Section 151 CPC on behalf of
the plaintiff for taking on record documents pertaining to the case
pending between the parties under Section 138 of NI Act is taken on
record. It is averred that the said documents were not in possession of
the plaintiff at the time of filing of the plaint. In view of the averments,
the application is allowed. The documents are taken on record.
Submissions heard on the application filed under Order
XXXIX Rule 10 CPC R/w Order 15A CPC on behalf of the plaintiff.
Despite multiple pass over, none has appeared on behalf of the
defendant.
It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit
property by way of a registered deed entered into by the defendant as
the seller and the plaintiff as the purchaser. It is further averred that the
said property was given on lease to the defendant in March, 2022 for
rent of Rs.10,000/- per month, however, rent has not been paid since
January, 2023. The cheque of Rs.75,000/- issued by the defendant in
November, 2032 for payment of arrears of rent has been returned
dishonored on account of insufficient funds. In the present application,
it is averred that as the property of the defendant is in the possession of
the plaintiff, the defendant be directed to deposit arrears of rent of Rs.
95,000/- and further occupational charges of Rs.15,000/- per month.
-- 1 of 2 --
Per contra, it is the case of the defendant that the sale deed
and rent agreement has been executed by the plaintiff fraudulently as
the defendant was under the impression that a mortagage deed was
executed. It is further denied that the premises were given on rent for
Rs.10,000/- per month.
The sale deed has been admitted by the defendant and
therefore, as per record, the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit
property. Whilst the defendant has denied that he is a tenant,
considering the defendant’s ownership of the suit property, the nature
of possession by the defendant is at best that of a
tenant/licencee/unauthorized occupier. In Prem Lata vs. Raghubir and
Ors, it was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (211 DHC 516), “rent
in order 15A CPC is not limited to the admited rent.” There is
presumption based on the lease deed as well as the sale deed that the
plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant/unauthorized
occupant. In view of the same, pending the final decision of the suit,
the defendant is directed to make payment of Rs.15,000/- per month as
occupation charges from January, 2024 till May, 2025 and henceforth,
on the 30th day of each month. No orders are being passed with respect
to claim for arrears of rent. Application accordingly stands disposed.
Plaintiff is directed to furnish the details of his bank
account to the defendant.
List for filing of replication/completion of
pleadings/framing of issues on 03.09.2025.
(T. Priyadarshini)
SCJ-cum-RC
East/KKD/03.06.2025
-- 2 of 2 --