RFA 33/2020 Page 1 of 13

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision:- 01.08.2022

+

RFA 33/2020 & CM APPL. 1898/2020 -Stay., CM APPL.

17227/2020 -E-hearing/Vac. of Stay/Stay by Res., CM APPL.

10080/2022 -E-hearing/Dir. by Res.

HARDEEP KAPOOR

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr.Amar Nath Saini, Adv.

versus

RAJESH VERMA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.Rohit K Modi, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1.

The regular first appeal under Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure

seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in

C.S.No.420/2017. Vide the impugned judgment, the respondent/plaintiff’s

suit for possession of the property being, LIG Flat No.QU-4B, First Floor,

Pitampura Delhi-110034, arrears of rent w.e.f., 01.01.2016 along with

interest @7%, has been decreed by the Ld. Trial Court.

2.

The common case of the parties is that the suit property was let out by

the respondent in favour of the appellant. While it is the respondent’s case

that the appellant was inducted as a tenant pursuant to a rent agreement

dated 08.01.2010 on a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/-, which rent was

subsequently increased to Rs. 13,000/- per month, exclusive of water and

electricity charges, it is the appellant’s case that the rent agreement was an

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002908

RFA 33/2020 Page 2 of 13

oral agreement with a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-. It is the respondent’s case

that since the appellant started defaulting in the payment of rent and water

charges w.e.f., 01.01.2016, his tenancy was terminated vide a legal notice

dated 29.11.2016. The respondent, while calling upon the appellant to vacate

the suit property, also demanded a sum of Rs. 1,43,000/- from the appellant

towards arrears of rent for the period between 01.01.2016 to 30.11.2016.

However, since, despite service of the legal notice, the appellant failed to

vacate the suit property, the respondent preferred a suit seeking suit for

possession and permanent injunction along with arrears of rent of Rs.

1,43,000/- and mesne profits @ 15,000/- per month.

3.

The appellant defended the suit by filing a written statement, wherein

besides urging that he had regularly paid the monthly rent for the period

between December, 2016 to July, 2017 by depositing the same before the

Ld. Rent Controller, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, it was averred that since the

appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as interest free security to the

respondent, the monthly rent between the parties was fixed at Rs. 2,000/-

with a further condition that the tenancy would continue for an indefinite

period and the rate of rent would not be increased in the future. It was the

appellant’s further plea that the rent agreement between the parties was oral

and the agreement dated 08.01.2010 was a forged and a fabricated

document.

4.

After completion of pleadings, the Ld. Trial Court framed the

following issues-

(i) Whether the suit is without cause of action?OPD

(ii) Whether the suit is barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent

Control Act?OPD

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002908

RFA 33/2020 Page 3 of 13

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession

asprayed for?OPP

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of

amount on account of rent/ damages/ mesne profits as prayed

for?OPP

(v) Relief.

5.

In support of their pleadings, both sides filed their evidence by way

of affidavit. The respondent/plaintiff only examined himself as PW-1 and

similarly, the appellant only examined himself as DW-1.