SUDESH CHOPRA Vs. CHIRANJIV SINGH DANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant has handed over a bankers' cheque to learned counsel for the respondents in sum of Rs.4,06,080.00 towards payment of part rent and part hire-cum-maintenance charges and undertakes to clear the arrears latest by May 31, 2013. The cheque has been received without prejudice by the respondents.

(2.) CHIRANJIV Singh Dang and his wife Ritu Dang sued appellant for possession of property comprising 500 sq.yd. land and a residential building constructed thereon situated in part of Khasra No.256/3 Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Hauzkhas as also arrears of rent from October 01, 2010 till when the suit was filed as also future rent including hire charges from October 01, 2010 on the plea that Chiranjiv Singh Dang was the owner of the property in question and had let out the same to the appellant pursuant to a lease deed dated February 12, 2009 at a monthly rent of Rs.18,000.00 to be increased by 6% every year and that the duration of the lease which commenced on January 01, 2009 was to end on December 31, 2011. Rent was to be paid in advance by the seventh day of each calendar month. It was also pleaded that simultaneously under a hire and maintenance agreement of even date the appellant was to pay to Ritu Dang a sum of Rs.18,000.00 per month, to be increased by 6% every year towards fittings and fixtures supplied by her. They alleged that the appellant tampered with the electricity meter installed at the premises in respect whereof a case was registered and thus they determined the lease vide notice dated September 06, 2010 as also the hire agreement.

(3.) THE tacit admission that she was occupying the property as a lessee is to be found at two places in the reply to paragraph 8 of the plaint. In the corresponding paragraph of the written statement filed she, inter-alia pleaded : 'In reply to this para it is submitted that plaintiff's are very well aware of the fact that alleged theft of electricity is not related to the period of lease period and even the alleged allegation of plaintiffs finding the defendant indulged in theft of electricity is unfounded, ............the suit of the plaintiff is devoid of cause of action and has been filed only to harass, humiliate, pressurize and blackmail the defendant so that she bow down the plaintiffs illegal demand of enhancement of unreasonable rent......'.