BHANU MEHRA Vs. DATO BRIJ KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri A.K. Garg, Additional District Judge, Delhi in suit No. 391 of 1999 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for possession of the suit premises on the alleged admission of the defendant/appellant keeping the other questions relating to damages etc. pending consideration.

(2.) Facts in so far as are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that on 20.8.1999 suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking a decree for possession of house No. M 97, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the plan attached to the plaint; a decree for damages for use and occupation from 1.7.1999 to 18.8.1999 at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month; a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,40,000/- towards water charges; a decree for Rs. 55,750/- towards electricity charges; and decree for use and occupation from the date of institution of the suit till recovery of possession.

(3.) The plaintiffs alleged that the suit premises was let out to the defendant for a period of nine years with effect from 1.7.1990 on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 19.7.1990 on payment of Rs. 6,250/- per month, as rent payable on or before 7th day of each month, subject to enhancement by 15% after every three years. Lastly the rent payable was Rs. 8,254/- per month besides electricity and water charges. Breach was committed by the defendant of the terms of the lease in as much as substantial damage had been caused to the premises. The defendant has been using the electricity more than the sanctioned load and had not been paying electricity and water charges. A sum of Rs. 87,010.67 was paid by the plaintiff towards electricity charges for the period from 4.12.1998 to 31.1.1999. Copies of the bills were sent to the defendant and by notice sent under registered A.D. cover on 16.2.1999, the defendant was called upon to pay 50% of the electricity charges towards his share and further notifying that they were'not interested to keep the defendant as their tenant and called upon him to vacate the premises on the expiry of the lease period. The defendant was further notified that after the expiry of the tenancy period, the defendant should not deposit rent in their bank account and in case any amount is deposited by the defendant, the same would be treated as damages for use and occupation. The notice was received back with the endorsement "refused". The second notice dated 22.4.1999 was sent to the defendant under registered A.D. cover reiterating the contents of the earlier notice. The said notice was also received back with the similar endorsement.