Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Civ suit 715/24
VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL Vs. SALEEM KHAN
26.03.2025
Present: Sh. Naveen Kumar Goyal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Mohd. Irfan, Ld. Counsel for defendant alongwith
defendant.
1. Two applications, one u/o XII Rule 6 CPC and the other u/o
XXXIX Rule 10 CPC have been filed on behalf of plaintiff.
Copies supplied to other side.
2. One application has also been filed by defendant u/o XIV
Rule 5 CPC for framing additional issue. Copy supplied to other
side.
3. The application u/o XIV Rule 5 CPC has been taken up for
disposal.
4. Ld. Counsel for defendant has submitted that the plaintiff is
not the landlord of the suit property as the same was let out by his
father to the defendant’s father at a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- per
month excluding electricity and water charges. He has submitted
that the other LRs of his late father have not been added as a party
to the present suit. He has contended that following additional
issues be framed viz.
(i) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder or misjoinder of
necessary parties?
(ii) Whether the suit is liable to be rejected u/o VII Rule 11
CPC?
5. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has contended that the rent
Cont...
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
agreement, the copy of which has been filed on record, was
executed between the plaintiff and the defendant and the
defendant’s brother was a witness to the said agreement. He has
submitted that since the tenancy was itself between the plaintiff
and the defendant, there is no issue of misjoinder or non joinder of
necessary parties. He has further contended that the defendant is
always at liberty to move an application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC for
rejection of plaint and for which purpose an issue cannot be
framed.
6. I have heard the submissions and perused the record. The
copy of the rent agreement filed on record shows that the rent
agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant.
In view thereof, the argument qua framing of additional issue with
respect to non joinder or misjoinder of necessary parties is
misconceived. So far as the contention concerning Order VII Rule
11 CPC is concerned, the same cannot be an issue and the
defendant is at liberty to file an appropriate application specifying
the grounds specified u/o VII Rule 11 CPC. The application stands
dismissed and accordingly disposed of.
7. The next application filed on behalf of plaintiff u/o XXXIX
Rule 10 CPC has been taken up for disposal.
8. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the defendant is
a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- excluding the other
charges. He has further submitted that the defendant has admitted
his signatures and thumb impressions on the rent agreement and
therefore, he should be directed to pay arrears of rent from
01.08.2024 at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- excluding all other charges
Cont...
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
till the disposal of the present case.
9. Ld. Counsel for defendant has submitted that the defendant
is a tenant at a rate of Rs. 3000/- per month and he is a protected
tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act. He has further submitted
that the defendant is ready to make the payment of the admitted
rent of Rs. 3000/- from 01.10.2024.
10. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has accepted the proposal for
payment of Rs. 3000/- from 01.10.2024 till the disposal of the suit.
11. In view of the submissions of the parties, the defendant is
directed to pay the admitted amount/monthly rent of Rs. 3000/-
alongwith water and electricity charges to plaintiff from
01.10.2024 till the pendency of suit. Plaintiff is directed to issue
the receipts for the same to the defendant. With these directions,
the application stands disposed of.
12. Now, the application u/o XII Rule 6 CPC filed on behalf of
plaintiff has been taken up for disposal.
13. After some arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff seeks to
withdraw the present application. Separate statement of plaintiff is
recorded to that effect.
14. The application stands dismissed as withdrawn and
accordingly disposed of.
15. Matter is at the stage of PE. Both the parties have jointly
requested for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner u/o
XVIII Rule 4 CPC for recording the evidence in the present suit.
16. By consent of the parties, Sh. Rishabh, Enrol No.
D/8211/2020, Mob: 8587013404, office at 722, F Block, KKD
Courts, Delhi has been appointed as an Advocate Commissioner.
Cont...
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
The fees of the Advocate Commissioner has been fixed at Rs.
3000/- per witness excluding other charges. The fees shall be
borne by the parties calling the witness.
17. Relist for commissioner’s report on 27.05.2025.
(AYUSH SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE/EAST
KKD COURTS/26.03.2025
-- 4 of 4 --