JASWINDER SINGH Vs. BAKSHISH SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is admitted to the extent that the shop in dispute is situated in Mohalla Shah Sultanpur Lodhi, but rest of the para is wrong hence denied. It is denied that the shop in dispute is integral part of the building comprising seven shops in all as alleged. It is denied that the land underneath the said shop was purchased by the petitioners vide sale deed dated 05.05.1992 executed by Jaimal Singh s/o Satna, Singh s/o Kishan Singh r/o Sultanpur Lodhi for a sale consideration of Rs. 62,500/- as alleged. Neither the petitioner has placed the copy of the sale deed on the record nor supplied any copy of the same to the answering respondent as such the respondent reserves his right to give appropriate detailed reply to the same as and when occasion so arise. It is denied that the after purchasing the land as alleged, the petitioner got constructed seven shops, which were rented out to various tenants as alleged. The petitioners have not filed any site plan got sanctioned from Nagar Council, Sultanpur Lodhi before the construction of the shop. However, it is denied that all the shops are in the possession of various tenants that is why no detail of the same has been given. It is stated here that two shops are virtually in possession of the petitioners but just to dodge this Hon'ble Court and created a camaflouge. All the shops are alleged to have been given on rent although virtually two shops are in actual possession of the petitioners. It is however not denied that the shop in dispute was rented out to the respondent but it is denied that it was ever agreed with mutual consent or otherwise to increase the rate of rent @15% p.a every year w.e.f 002009. No such condition was ever agreed between the parties nor is binding on the respondent at all. It is denied that the respondent has failed to pay the alleged due agreed rent w.e.f 002009 or that he is in arrears of rent since then as alleged. It is denied that the respondent is further liable to pay house tax as well as electricity charges w.e.f 002009 amounting to Rs. 18175. On the other hand the respondent, has been regularly paying the rent at the initial agreed rate of rent without any break except till the filing of the present petition. The petitioner has already received the arrears of rent upto 30.04.2013 and thereafter no rent was received by the petitioners for obvious reason, on account of having filed the present petition. It is submitted that the rent settled between the parties was inclusive of all taxes and charges and therefore the respondent is not liable to pay separately the electricity charges or house tax as claimed in the present petition. The petitioners themselves have refused to receive the rent from 005.2013 due to filing of the present petition.

(2.) It is wrong hence denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the respondent has paid the rent to the petitioner only upto 31.12008 or that thereafter has not paid the rent to the petitioners till 01.01.2009 onwards at the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 2500/- per month or non existing increase at the rate of 15% p.a. thereon along with house tax and electricity charges. Since the respondent has already paid the rent upto 30.04.2013, so the question of making any request or demand by the petitioners does not arise at all." (emphasis supplied)