SIDDHANTH MENDIRATTA Vs. MADHU CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular first appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, CPC) seeks to assail the judgment and decree dtd. 10/11/2021 passed by the learned ADJ in CS (DJ) No. 803 of 2019. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession by allowing the respondents' application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and has directed the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the suit property being Shop no. G-19, Vishwa Sadan, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property')

(2.) The suit property was initially let out by the respondents in favour of the appellant by way of a rent agreement in April/May, 2014 and the tenancy period in respect of the suit property was extended from time to time. While it is the case of the respondents that after the expiry of the previous rent agreement, the parties entered into a rent agreement on 22/8/2018 for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 1/9/2018 to 31/7/2019 at a monthly rent of Rs.29,000.00, it is the appellant's case that the monthly rent of the suit property was only Rs.2,900.00. It was the respondents' case that since the appellant failed to pay the rent for the month of July-September, 2019, a legal notice dtd. 7/9/2019 was served upon the appellant to pay arrears of rent and vacate the suit property. As the appellant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit property, the respondents filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits.

(3.) The suit was defended by the appellant by filing a written statement, wherein the appellant contended that the suit for possession was not maintainable as the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 as interest free security to the respondent in respect of the suit property and was therefore entitled to occupy the suit property till the amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 was returned by the respondents. It was further averred that since the monthly rent of the suit property was Rs.2,900.00, the learned Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the appropriate remedy, if any, available with the respondents was to approach the competent authority under the Delhi Rent Control Act.