PARAMJEET SINGH KALSI Vs. MANOJ SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, ('ADJ') in a Civil Suit No.761/2017 dismissing the application of the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. The application was dismissed by the learned ADJ for the reason 'There is no agreement between plaintiff and defendant No.1. There is no admitted rate of rent which is stated to have not been paid. Hence, no orders can be passed under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC.'

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears, damages and perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of property No.18/30, Gali No.5, Railway Line Side, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, Delhi110005, as shown in the red clolur in the site plan, which is bounded on the North by property No.18/30-A, on the South by property No.18/29, on the East by Drain (Nala) and on the West by Street. It is pleaded in the plaint that both the respondents claiming themselves to be close friends and associates of each other, jointly approached the appellant for being inducted as licensee in the said property, shown in red colour in the site plan, on the first floor. On behalf of both the respondents, an agreement dated 25.05.2015 was executed by respondent No.2 for taking the said property on license for a period of eleven months with effect from 01.06.2015 on a licence fee @ Rs.21,000/- per month. It is further pleaded that the appellant has obtained a separate electricity connection vide CA No.60021166438 for exclusive use by respondent No.1 and it was agreed that the electricity charges shall be paid by cheque by respondent No.1 directly to the service provider. The appellant has further pleaded in the plaint that both the respondents have failed to pay him the license fee/rent with effect from May, 2016. He pleaded that the agreement dated 25.05.2015 stands expired by efflux of time on 30.04.2016 and occupation of the suit premises by respondent No.1 thereafter is unauthorized and illegal.

(3.) The respondent No.2 has neither appeared before the trial court nor filed any written statement and he is stated to be ex-parte.