Tenant's failure to provide evidence challenging lease agreement validity and rent obligations supports trial court's possession decree and rent orders.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The present appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred by the defendant no.1 in suit no. 8812/2016 (new) assailing the judgment dated 17.01.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-06, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff for possession of the property bearing House no.330, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, along with arrears of rent of Rs.2,24,000/- payable with interest @ 12% per annum and has also directed the appellant to pay mesne profits @ Rs.20,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.09.2013.

2. The brief facts emerging from the record are that the respondent no.1/Plaintiff inherited the suit property through a will dated 23.05.1979 from his father Mr. Sohan Singh Gill. In the year 2010, the respondent no.1 appointed his uncle, Mr. Sardar Piara Singh as his Special Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as SPA) in respect of the suit property. On 22.06.2011, the respondent no.1 through his SPA entered into a lease agreement for a period of eleven months qua the suit property with the appellant, as per the terms of this lease agreement the monthly rent of this premises was fixed at Rs.12,500/- per month. It is the respondent no.1's case that as the appellant stopped paying rent w.e.f. May, 2012, the lease in accordance with clause 16 of the agreement stood automatically terminated after 30 days. As the appellant despite failing to pay the rent still did not vacate the premises, the respondent no.1 through his SPA issued a legal notice dated 27.07.2013 terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 30.08.2013 and thereafter instituted the suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits which has been decreed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 11.05.2017:

"i. ISSUE No.1 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the property bearing no. H-330, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018? OPP

ii, ISSUE No.2 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/mesne profit, if so, to what rate? OPP

iii. ISSUE No.3 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the amount of damages/mesne profit, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP

iv. ISSUE No.4 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,24,000/- towards arrears of rent from defendant No.1 Sh. Praveen Kumar? OPP

v. ISSUE No.5 - Whether the rent agreement dated 22.06.2011 is a forged and fabricated document? OPD

vi. ISSUE No.6 - Whether the suit is barred by Sec. 50 of the DRC Act? OPD

vii. ISSUE No.7 - RELIEF"

4. In his written statement the appellant besides claiming that the lease agreement was a forged document, took the plea that the monthly rent of the premises was only Rs.2,500/- and not Rs.12,500/-, the suit was barred as his tenancy was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellant did not lead any evidence and that too despite having been granted another opportunity by this Court on 01.10.2019 in CM (M) 1449/2019 filed by him. The respondent no.1 however, examined six witnesses in support of his claim and therefore the learned trial Court while observing that the appellant had been delaying the matter ever since the inception of the suit, decreed the same by taking into account the evidence led by the respondent no.1. The relevant findings of the learned trial Court read as under:

"20. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants particularly the defendant No.1 who asserted that the monthly rent was Rs.2,500/-. The plaintiff