Delhi High Court
Ajit Pal Singh vs M/S B K Jewellery House Marketing ... on 14 March, 2011
Author: J.R. Midha
31
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS)No.880/2010
Date of Decision : 14th March, 2011
%
AJIT PAL SINGH ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Raman Kapur and
Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advs.
versus
M/S B K JEWELLERY HOUSE
MARKETING PVT LTD ..... Defendant
Through : Mr. Rajnish Singh, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
J.R. MIDHA, J. (Oral)
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of possession
of basement of property bearing No.WZ-16, Ugarsen
Market/Bindra Market, Santpura, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-
110018. The plaintiff is also claiming arrears of rent from
February, 2009 to October, 2009 and mesne profits with effect
from 1st November, 2009.
2. The plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit property
which was let out to the defendant vide registered lease deed
dated 21st May, 2008 for a period of three years with effect
from 1st March, 2008 to 28th February, 2011 at a monthly rent
of `70,000/- per month. The plaintiff paid the rent for the
month of February, 2009 by means of cheque No.843441 dated
7th February, 2009 which was dishonoured upon presentation.
No rent was paid thereafter. As such, the plaintiff has not
received any amount towards rent of the suit property. Vide
notice dated 31st July, 2009, the plaintiff terminated the lease
under Clause 11 of the lease deed dated 21st May, 2008 on
account of the default of the defendant in payment of rent.
The lease stood terminated on the expiry of 90 days from the
notice in terms of the lease deed.
3. The summons in the suit were served on the defendants
who entered the appearance before this court on 17th
September, 2010 and four weeks time was granted to them to
file the written statement along with all original documents.
4. The time for filing the written statement expired on 17th
October, 2010 and more than four months have passed since
then.
5. The learned counsel for the defendant seeks further time
to file the written statement which is declined.
6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for their failure to file the written statement.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that he
restricts his claim for relief of mesne profits in prayers (c) and
(d) to the agreed rent and gives up prayer (e) of the plaint.
7. The learned counsel for the defendant submits that under
Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is
mandatory for the plaintiff to lead the evidence and the Court
has no jurisdiction to pass the decree without recording the
evidence.
8. The law with respect to Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is well settled. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of
Civil Procedure gives discretion to the Court either to
pronounce judgment or make such order in relation to the suit
as it thinks fit. Though this Rule provides that the Court "shall"
pronounce judgment against the defendant, it is not mandatory
for the Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff
straightway because a written statement is not filed. It is the
duty of the Court to analyse the pleadings so as to find out if it
is safe to rely on the pleadings itself or to require proof of the
content thereof.
9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is
of the view that this is a fit case for exercise of discretion under
Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is safe
to rely on the pleadings without requiring further proof. In that
view of the matter, the plaintiff's suit is decreed as under:-
(i) The decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant in respect of the
basement of property bearing No.WZ-16, Ugarsen
Market/Bindra Market, Santpura, Tilak Nagar, New
Delhi-110018 marked in red colour in the site plan
attached to the plaint.
(ii) The decree for recovery of rent from 1st February,
2009 till 31st October, 2009 @ `70,000/- per month.
(iii) The decree for mesne profits for the period 1st
November, 2009 till the date of receipt of
possession @ `70,000/- per month.
(iv) The plaintiff shall be entitled to pendente-lite and
future interest @ 9% per annum from the date the
rent/mesne profits were due till the recovery.
(v) The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the costs of this
suit.
J.R. MIDHA, J
MARCH 14, 2011
aj
