Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. MEENU KAUSHIK,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-03, NORTH-WEST DISTT.,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
RCA no. 53/2023
CNR No. DLND010094822023
Shri Harnandan Swaroop,
Presently residing at House No. 198,
Room No.3, 2nd Floor, Gali No.7,
(Near Telephone Exchange)
Samalka , Extn.
New Delhi 110 037
…… Appellant
VS.
Smita,
R/o RZF-442/6E, Sadh Nagar Part-2,
Gali No.24, Palam Colony,
New Delhi 110 045
…… Respondent
Date of institution : 04.11.2023
Date on which reserved for judgment : 05.12.2025
Date of decision : 20.12.2025
Decision : Dismissed
J U D G M E N T
RCA No. 53/2023
	Harnandan Swaroop Vs Smita
Page 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
1. By way of this Order I shall dispose of present appeal filed against
judgment and decree dated 06.10.2023 passed by Ms. Amardeep Kaur,
Ld. Civil Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their
status as before the Ld. Trial Court.
3. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as alleged by the plaintiff/
respondent at the time of the filing of the suit are that the plaintiff had
entered into an oral agreement with the defendant on 01.08.2020 for
tenancy of 1st floor of the suit property at the rate of Rs.8,800/- PM. It is
further stated by plaintiff that rent amount and other charges were paid to
the defendant, however, defendant started making unreasonable demands
for increase of rent and also sought payment for car parking charges of
Rs.1,000/-. It is further stated that owing to the illegal demand of the
defendant, plaintiff decided to relocate to a different premises and started
shifting from there on 13.09.2021. It is further stated that on 21.09.2021
plaintiff paid all the dues of electricity and water charges and went to
collect his remaining valuables/belongings left to be shifted from the
rented premises but the defendant refused to open the doors. It is further
stated that even police officials denied to help the plaintiff from
recovering his goods and hence the suit was filed against the defendant.
As per version of the defendant, no security was ever deposited by the
plaintiff and she also denied that she raised any unreasonable demand for
enhancement of rent and parking charges. It is further stated by
RCA No. 53/2023
	Harnandan Swaroop Vs Smita
Page 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
defendant that it was the plaintiff who was encroaching upon the common
area of the suit property by placing unused articles/flower pots etc. and
hence the defendant was constrained to ask the plaintiff to vacate the suit
premises by 31.08.2021. It is further stated that plaintiff had shifted all
his belongings from the suit property by 13.09.2021 but he continued to
visit the suit property unnecessarily and for this defendant filed a
complaint in the concerned police station to ensure her safety. It is
further stated by defendant that plaintiff left behind only one ceiling fan
and dish antenna on roof and no other article was left in the suit property
and the suit filed by plaintiff is false and fabricated.
5. On basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:
i) Whether the defendant has unlawfully retained the personal
belongings of the plaintiff after the termination of tenancy? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory and
permanent injunction against the defendant to return the above said
article and in alternate, for compensation in sum of value of goods?
OPP
iii) Relief.
6. Grounds of appeal:
(a) That the Ld. Trial Court Judge failed to appreciate that plaintiff had
entered into an oral agreement with the defendant on 01.08.2020 and
deposited the advance security and one month rent totaling to
Rs.17,600/-.
RCA No. 53/2023
	Harnandan Swaroop Vs Smita
Page 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
(b) That the rent agreement continued even in the month of July and
August, 2021 with the increased amount of Rs.500/- in two consecutive
months.
(c) Ld. Trial court has also failed to appreciate screen shots of
payments made to the defendant and that no legal notice was ever served
by defendant to the plaintiff.
(d) Ld. Trial court has also failed to appreciate that defendant was
demanding additional charges of Rs.1,000/- PM for parking of vehicle in
front of the suit property on MCD lane.
(e) Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that threatening calls were
made by police officials at the behest of defendant to the plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff examined himself before Ld. Trial Court. During cross
examination, he admitted that he had placed plants on the roof top of suit
property. He also admitted that he had interest in astrology and allied
rituals and many people used to visit him to resolve the problems. He also
admitted that he used to park the car in front of house of defendant/suit
property. He also admitted that he had knowledge about the police
complaint dated 18.09.2021 of the defendant.
8. Defendant also examined herself in her evidence. During cross
examination she denied that she had taken security deposit of Rs.8,800/-.
She further denied that she demanded charge of Rs.1,000/- for parking of
vehicle on public land in front of her gate. She stated that plaintiff had
shifted from the premises from 12.09.2021 to 13.09.2021 and plaintiff
visited the suit property on 14.09.2021, 15.09.2021 and 16.09.2021 and
on 18.09.2021 she made a complaint to police. She further stated that she
RCA No. 53/2023
	Harnandan Swaroop Vs Smita
Page 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
had made complaint regarding balance of dues of electricity charges and
rent and for visiting her premises again and again by the plaintiff. She
further stated that electricity dues were cleared by the plaintiff on
21.09.2021 at around 10.30 to 11.00 AM.
9. Arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for both the sides are
taken into consideration and record perused.
10. The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff seeking directions
to the defendant for return of his various articles or in the alternative for
directions to the defendant for making payment to compensate him.
11. Onus to prove both the issues was upon the plaintiff.
Plaintiff has placed on record the screen shots of the payment made
towards rent and utilities alongwith certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act
as Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly). Plaintiff has further filed a copy of status
report/closure report filed by the Inquiry Officer on the complaints of
defendant against the plaintiff and his family members as Ex. PW-1/3
(Colly). Plaintiff has also mentioned about one hand written list of
articles in his affidavit as Mark PW-1/4. As per the plaintiff, he was
residing in the suit property being tenant of the defendant and due to
illegal demands of the defendant he started shifting from the suit
premises on 13.09.2021.As per plaintiff, on 18.09.2021 he received a call
from police official inquiring regarding the time as to when he would
vacate the suit premises to whom he assured that the same shall be
vacated by 21.09.2021. Defendant has stated that on 18.09.2021 she
made a complaint in the concerned police station as plaintiff was
RCA No. 53/2023
	Harnandan Swaroop Vs Smita
Page 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
unnecessarily visiting the suit premises despite being the fact that he has
vacated the suit premises on 13.09.2021. As per the plaintiff he had paid
pending dues to the defendant by way of Google pay and despite that he
was not permitted to enter the rented premises by the plaintiff as she
refused to open the doors. As per plaintiff, although he had started
shifting from the rented premises, he had not collected all his valuables
and other items as enumerated in the list Mark PW-1/4 and cash of
Rs.50,000/-. No explanation is made by the plaintiff during trial as to why
he could not complete his shifting process during the period 13.09.2021
to 21.09.2021. The articles mentioned in the list Mark PW-1/4 are the
articles of day to day use. No specific reason is mentioned by plaintiff as
to why he was not permitted to enter the rented premises on 21.09.2021
despite the fact that he had paid the pending dues. Plaintiff has also not
explained as to why when he was not permitted to enter into rented
premises, he did not make any police complaint despite the fact that he
was aware of the fact that defendant had already approached the
concerned police station on 18.09.2021. Plaintiff has only mentioned that
instead of making call to the police helpline, he made call to police
official from whom he had received call on 18.09.2021. The submissions
of plaintiff that not taking steps against defendant for letting him into the
suit premises on 21.09.2021 despite allegedly making the payment
towards pending dues is not found acceptable and seems unnatural.
Further, it is also found unacceptable and improbable that any prudent
person who is in the process of shifting the premises would leave any
cash and that too to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in the premises. Plaintiff has
not given any description of the goods as mentioned in Mark PW-1/4.
Nor any bill is annexed to support the claim. Plaintiff also could not give
RCA No. 53/2023
	Harnandan Swaroop Vs Smita
Page 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
any cogent evidence with respect to his claim regarding the security
amount and payment of rent of one month in advance.
12. In view of the discussed facts the court is of considered opinion
that, no interference is required in the judgment passed by Ld. Trial
Court. The appeal is devoid of any merits. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
13. The Trial Court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court along
with copy of this order. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No order
as to cost. The present appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court
on 20th December, 2025 )
(Meenu Kaushik)
District Judge-03
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District
New Delhi
RCA No. 53/2023
	Harnandan Swaroop Vs Smita
Page 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --