CM(M) 1063/2022

Page 1 of 5

$~126(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M)

1063/2022

&

CM

APPL.43768/2022,

CM

APPL.43769/2022

MONA MAMTANI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. with

petitioner in person

versus

MOHINDER

KAUR

BEDI

(DECEASED)

THROUGH

LEGAL HEIR

..... Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

%

J U D G M E N T

10.10.2022

1.

The order, impugned in the present petition under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, has been passed by the learned Additional

District Judge (“the learned ADJ”) in CS 903/2019 (Mohinder Kaur

Medi v. Mona Momtani), on an application filed by the respondent-

plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (CPC).

The suit

2.

The respondent in CS 903/2019, claimed to be the sole, absolute

and exclusive owner of Flat No. 1026, Ground Floor, Sector A

Pockets B and C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (“the suit

property”, hereinafter), having purchased the suit property from its

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004179

CM(M) 1063/2022

Page 2 of 5

erstwhile owner under an Agreement to Sell dated 15^th March 2005.

The plaint averred that the suit property had been leased out to the

petitioner-defendant under a Lease Agreement dated 14^th July 2016,

for a period of 11 months, spanning from 1^st August 2016 to 30^th June

2017, at a monthly rent of ₹ 33,000/-. The aforesaid Lease

Agreement, as per the plaint, was extended by a subsequent Lease

Agreement dated 1^st July 2017, executed by the constituted Attorney

of the respondent, whereby the lease was extended for a further period

of 11months from 1^st July 2017 to 31^st May 2018 on similar terms and

conditions. Despite expiry of the extended lease period on 31^st May

2018, the plaint alleged that the petitioner had failed to vacate the suit

property, resulting in the respondent calling upon the petitioner to

vacate vide email dated 1^st July 2018 and telephonic text messages.

The plaint specifically asserts that, after the Lease Agreement dated 1^st

July 2017, which came to an end by efflux of time on 31^st May 2018,

no further Lease Agreement was executed, permitting the petitioner to

continue to stay in the suit property.

3.

Alleging, in these circumstances, that a considerable amount of

lease rental was due from the petitioner to the respondent, the suit

sought a decree of possession in favour of the respondent and against

the petitioner, in respect of the suit property as well as a decree for a

recovery of arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits, apart from

permanent injunction and costs.

4.

The petitioner filed a written statement, by way of response to

the suit. In the written statement, the petitioner disputed the assertion

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004179

CM(M) 1063/2022

Page 3 of 5

of the respondent that she was entitled to collect lease rent from the

petitioner. It was asserted, in the written statement, that the lease was

in the name of Sukh Preet Singh, who was the absolute owner of the

suit property and that the petitioner was continuing to stay in the suit

property, free of charge, with the consent of Sukh Preet Singh. In the

written statement, however, the petitioner admitted that she had been

staying in the suit property on payment of lease rent @ ₹ 33,000/- per

month and that, in fact, she had ceased paying lease rental since March

2018. The genuineness of the Lease Deeds dated 14^th July 2016 and

1^st July 2017, on which the plaint placed reliance, was also contested

in the written statement. Inasmuch as the Lease Deed had been

executed by the respondent, whereas Sukh Preet Singh had held out, to

the petitioner, that he was the absolute owner of the suit property, it

was sought to be contended that Lease Deed was not binding on the

petitioner.

5.

I