The court upheld the principle that a party must diligently pursue its case and present a defense, and that uncontroverted evidence can lead to a judgment in favor of the presenting party.

JUDGMENT :

(Gaurang Kanth, J.) :—

1. The Appellant (Original Defendant in Suit No. 9220/2016) is aggrieved by the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 24.01.2022 (“Impugned Judgment”) in Suit No. 9220/2016 and Order dated 21.11.2022 (“Impugned Order”) in the Review Petition No. 1/2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, South District, Saket, New Delhi in the matter titled Smt. Hoshiyari Devi v. Sh. Rakesh.

2. Vide the Impugned Judgment, learned Trial Court was pleased to decree the ‘suit for permanent injunction, possession and recovery of mesne profits along with pendente lite and future interest’ in favour of the Respondent (Original Plaintiff). Learned Trial Court further held that the Appellant is entitled for damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of issuance of the legal notice till the date of vacation. The Appellant filed the Review Petition seeking a review of the said Impugned Judgment which was dismissed vide the Impugned Order.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL:

3. The Respondent purchased the property bearing No. 222-D/D-1, area 40 sq. yds. comprise in Khasra No. 789/508 (Abadi of Lal Dora) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Shahpur Jat, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli, New Delhi (“Suit Property”) from Appellant's mother vide a registered sale deed dated 11.05.2009. The Respondent thereafter permitted the Appellant to occupy the Suit Property as a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 6000/- based on an oral agreement. The Appellant paid the rent on a timely basis and thus the tenancy was extended from time to time.

4. In the month of November 2012, the Appellant defaulted on payment of rent. As a result, the Respondent insisted on executing a written lease agreement. Therefore, a registered lease agreement was executed between the parties on 14.12.2012 (“Lease Agreement”) for the period from 01.09.2012 to 31.07.2013. The Lease Agreement stipulated an enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 8000/-.

5. Starting from February 2013, the Appellant once again began defaulting on payment of rent. As a result, the Respondent asked the Appellant to vacate the Suit Premises. However, the Appellant refused to do so.

6. On 18.04.2013, the Respondent issued a legal notice calling upon the Appellant to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the Suit Property and to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 25,000/- p.m. w.e.f. February, 2013. However, even after the receipt of the said legal notice, the Appellant failed to vacate the Suit Property despite assuring the Respondent that they would do so and clear all outstanding dues.

7. On 12.09.2014, the Appellant began demolishing the Suit Property. When the Respondent objected to the demolition, the Appellant and his spouse threatened to falsely implicate the Respondent and her sons in legal cases. The Respondent filed a complaint with the police vide D.D. No. 44B but such complaint did not result in any action being taken by the police.

8. The Respondent, in view of the above, filed a suit for permanent injunction, possession and recovery of mesne profits along with pendente lite and future interest against the Appellant.

9. Despite being served, the Appellant failed to file the written statement, and therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.08.2015. Later, the Appellant filed an Application under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC seeking to set aside the exparte order dated 04.08.2015. However, the said Application was also rejected vide order dated 18.12.2018. Thereafter, the Appellant made no attempt to challenge the order dated 18.12.2018 and thus, the order attained finality. Nevertheless, the Appellant participated in the trial proceedings and even cross-examined the Plaintiff's Witnesses.

10. Meanwhile, the Appellant's wife, Smt. Sunil Kumari moved an Application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, seeking to implead herself as a necessary party. It was her contention that she is the owner of the Suit Property as all her documents (Voter I-Card, r