Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: In the court of Sh. Umed Singh Grewal, District Judge-
Commercial Court-02, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) No.6797/2024
In the matter of:
Dallo Devi ….. Plaintiff
Vs
Shri Rahul Attri ....... Defendant
ORDER
1. This order shall decide an application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC.
2. Plaintiff's case is that she is owner of second floor without
roof terrace right no.2509, measuring 160 Sq. yds, Hudson Lines
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009 (hereinafter referred to as suit
property) by virtue of partition deed dated 05.06.1997 and
rectification deed dated 30.11.2016, both registered in the office
of Sub Registrar-VI and VI(A) respectively Pitampura, Delhi. It
was leased out to defendant vide registered lease deed dated
13.01.2021 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,20,000/- for one year from
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.1 to 9
-- 1 of 9 --
01.02.2021 to 31.01.2022 and the rent was payable in advance
between first to fifth day of each calendar month. One of the
term of the lease deed provided that if the defendant failed to pay
advance rent, he shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- delay charges
per day. Another condition was that if the defendant failed to
vacate the suit property on expiry of lease period, he will have to
pay Rs.10,000/- per day as penalty in addition to the lease
amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per month. For December 2021 and
January 2022, the total payable rent was Rs.2,40,000/- but the
defendant paid only Rs.47,200/-. The tenancy expired by efflux
of time on 31.01.2022, but the defendant did not vacate the suit
property. No notice was required as the tenancy had come to an
end due to elapse of tenancy period, yet, as a matter of abundant
caution, termination cum demand notice dated 06.09.2023 was
sent to defendant asking him to vacate the suit property, to pay
Rs.82,42,800/- (Rupees Eighty Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand
Eight Hundred Only) towards arrear of rent, penalty and
occupation charges and to clear the electricity and water charges.
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.2 to 9
-- 2 of 9 --
The defendant threatened her after receipt of notice saying that
he would create third party interest in the suit property.
3. On the other hand defendant's case is that he had taken suit
property from plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs.1,20,000/- for one
year i.e. from February 2021 to 13.02.2022 as he wanted to run a
Cafe and lease deed dated 13.01.2021 was executed between
them. The plaintiff had assured that she had taken No Objection
Certificate from every department of the Government like Fire
Department also. Thereafter he started paying rent and GST
regularly and also cleared electricity and water charges. But to
his surprise, some officials from MCD and Fire Department
visited the suit property in January 2022 and told the plaintiff as
well as other occupiers of the whole building that staircase for
exit was mandatory which was not constructed by the plaintiff
and same was required to be constructed otherwise the building
shall be sealed. As the staircase was to be constructed, the
plaintiff orally extended the tenancy after February 2022 and
thereafter the defendant regularly paid rent to her. She intimated
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.3 to 9
-- 3 of 9 --
defendant as well as other occupants of the building in March
2022 that she had to construct exit staircase as per the norms of
MCD and Fire Department due to which the building would
remain closed from 08.04.2022 to 01.08.2022 and assured that no
rent shall be charged from defendant for that period. At that
point of time, the defendant used to earn Rs.4 lakhs per month
from the property. In this way, he suffered a loss of Rs.16 lakhs
due to closure of business. Moreover, the suit property was
reduced to only 130 Sq. yds after construction of exit staircase
and also the kitchen was completely damaged and for restoring
the same to the original position, he had to incur a lot of money
to start the kitchen and cafe. The property again remained closed
from 21.09.2022 to 22.10.2024 due to some other repair. Though
the plaintiff had assured that she would not charge any rent for
construction, period, yet she gave rebate of only 15 days.
He asked plaintiff in February 2023 to prepare a new lease
deed from 01.03.2023 to 28.02.2024 and for that purpose, he had
purchased e-stamp of Rs.32,500/- but she refused to sign the
deed and in this way, he suffered a loss of Rs.32,500/-. She also
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.4 to 9
-- 4 of 9 --
did not pay GST to the concerned department though she had
taken the same from him. Due to non payment of GST, his bank
account was seized by the concerned department.
4. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the defendant has
admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and also the
tenancy period which has already come to an end. The rent was
Rs.1,20,000/- per month i.e. more Rs.3500/- per month. Only
those vital facts are required to be proved by the plaintiff or to be
admitted by the opposite party, to get an eviction decree. In the
case in hand, the defendant has admitted those facts and hence
decree of possession qua the suit property be passed.
He has relied upon "Ravi Somani Vs. Sandeep Tayal,
222(2015) DLT 1.
5. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for defendant argued that
the lease period come to an end on 13.02.2022 but before expiry,
the tenancy was extended orally by the plaintiff and thereafter the
defendant kept on paying rent regularly. He further argued that
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.5 to 9
-- 5 of 9 --
the plaintiff before start of tenancy, the plaintiff had assured that
she had got no objection certificate from every department of the
Government but later it came to his knowledge that exit staircase
had not been constructed which was constructed later on due to
objection raised by MCD and Fire Department. Due to that fresh
construction, the area of the suit property was reduced 130 Sq.
yds. He further argued that the suit property remained closed for
four months from April to August 2022 due to which his client
suffered a loss of Rs.22 lakhs which the plaintiff is bound to
compensate. He concluded the arguments saying that due to
these peculiar facts, the application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC be
dismissed.
6. Perusal of written statement and reply to the application
shows that the defendant has admitted following vital facts:-
(i) He had taken suit property on rent from plaintiff
vide lease deed dated 13.01.2021;
(ii) The rent was Rs.1,20,000/- per month.
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.6 to 9
-- 6 of 9 --
(iii) The tenancy was for one year from February 2021 to
13.02.2022.
He admitted the tenancy period with a rider that the
defendant had extended the lease agreement orally after February
2022 subsequent to which he kept on paying rent to the plaintiff.
7. The defendant did not place on record any document to
show extention of lease period after February 2022. He did not
file any rent receipt or statement of his or plaintiff's bank account
to show that he paid any rent after February 2022. Had he placed
on record such documents, his stand that the lease was extended
orally after February 2022, would have been vindicated. Due to
absence of these documents, the court is reaching to the
conclusion that there was no extention of lease deed orally after
February 2022.
8. In "Ravi Somani Vs. Sandeep Tayal, 222(2015) DLT 1 the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relied upon "Deluxe Dentelles Pvt.
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.7 to 9
-- 7 of 9 --
Ltd & Anr. Vs. Isphinder Kochhar, 218(2015) DLT 645 (DB) in
which following was held:-
"18. It is settled law that in Delhi, in a suit for
ejectment, only three issues arise for
consideration:
(a) Whether there exists a landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties?
(b) Whether the tenancy has expired by efflux
of time or stands determined by a valid notice to
quit or the tenant has otherwise forfeited the
right under the lease agreement? and
(c) Since Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
prohibits ejectment of a tenant paying rent upto
Rs.3,500/- per month save and except by an order
passed by a Rent Controller on the grounds
specified under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, whether the rent of the leased
premises is more than Rs.3,500/- per month."
9. In the case in hand, there is admission by defendant that he
was tenant of the plaintiff for one year and that period came to an
end in January or February 2022. He further admitted that the
rent was Rs.1,20,000/- per month. Due to admission of these
facts, the case comes within the parameters set by Hon'ble High
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.8 to 9
-- 8 of 9 --
Court Delhi in above cited case. So, the application U/O 12 Rule
6 CPC is allowed and decree of possession qua the suit property
is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Announced in the open (UMED SINGH GREWAL)
court on 02nd July, 2025 District Judge- Commercial Court-02
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
Suit No.6796/2024 Dallo Devi Vs. Rahul Attri
Page No.9 to 9
-- 9 of 9 --