NAND KISHORE KALRA Vs. HARISH MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant to assail the judgment dated 15.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, South District, Saket Courts Complex in R.C.A. No. 8/2015 titled Nand Kishore Kalra Vs. Harish Mathur. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the first appeal preferred by the appellant/ defendant against the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge-02 (South), Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi in CS No.355/2014 titled Harish Mathur Vs. Nand Kishore Kalra. The respondent/ plaintiff had preferred the said suit to seek possession (the same was, in fact, a suit for ejectment), recovery of Rs.2,88,600/- along with damages/ mesne profits, and future mesne profits/ damages for use and occupation of the suit property against the appellant herein.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the appellant is a tenant of the respondent in a portion in property bearing No. E-38, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The tenanted property consisted of one shop on the ground floor of the said property. The case of the plaintiff was that his father had initially let out the shop on the ground floor to the defendant vide lease deed dated 01.09.1980 at a monthly rent of Rs.130/-. After the demise of the plaintiff's father on 09.02.1995, the defendant started paying rent to the mother of the plaintiff, who also expired on 27.09.2005. The plaintiff claimed that he is the sole heir and the owner of the entire property, including the suit/ tenanted premises. The plaintiff stated that the last rent paid by the defendant was Rs.600/-, which was deposited by the defendant in the Court of the learned Rent Controller for the period January 2011 to February 2012 in a petition for deposit of rent being D.R. No.78/2012.

(3.) The plaintiff further stated that he desired to take back the premises from the appellant, and consequently preferred an eviction petition in the Court of learned Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). The appellant defendant filed his application to seek leave to defend the said petition and in the said leave to defend, the stand taken by the appellant/ defendant was that the rent of the tenanted premises had been increased from January 2011 onwards from Rs.600/- to Rs.11,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that he had terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f 31.03.2013, however, the defendant had not vacated the suit premises, and consequently, the suit had been filed. The plaintiff also claimed arrears of rent for the period January 2011 to 31.03.2013 at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month after granting adjustment of the amount of Rs.8,400/- deposited by the appellant/ defendant in the Court of the learned Rent Controller. The balance amount claimed by the plaintiff was Rs.2,88,600/-.