Anuradha Chaturvedi vs Kanwal Kishore And Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 4161 Del

*               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  CM 780/2012 & CM No. 11681/2012-11682/2012

                                            Date of Decision: 13.07.2012

ANURADHA CHATURVEDI                                      ..... Petitioner
               Through:                 Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv.

                                  Versus

KANWAL KISHORE AND ANR                                  ..... Respondents
                Through:                Mr. D. Hasija, Adv. for R-1 & R-
                                        2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks assailing of order dated 205.2012 of the learned Additional District Judge, Central, Delhi.

2. Vide this order an application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under section 151 CPC was allowed and the petitioners/defendants were directed to pay the occupancy charges of the suit premises to the respondents/plaintiffs @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit i.e. with effect from 10.08.2010 and also for future period till further orders.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of rent and mesne profits against the petitioners claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit premises. In brief the case was that the petitioners were inducted tenants in the suit premises @ Rs.5,000/- per

month with effect from 01.08.2003 by virtue of rent deed dated 05.08.2003. Tenancy was for a period of 11 months. By efflux of time, the tenancy expired on 30.06.2004. The respondents/plaintiffs case was that the tenancy was extended orally on the same terms and conditions, but, the rent was increased from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioners/defendants paid the rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month for the months of April and May 2006, but, stopped paying rent from 01.06.2006. The legal notice dated 24.04.2007 was issued calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month from 01.06.2006 to 30.04.2007, besides Rs. 20,000/- towards electricity charges. The petitioners did not pay the rent and the electricity charges. However, subsequently, at the petitioners request the tenancy was continued till 31.08.2008 @Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner Anuradha Chaturvedi issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 31.08.2008 as part payment of the arrears. However, the said cheque, on presentation, got dishonoured. Consequently, the plaintiffs/respondents terminated the tenancy vide notice dated 06.10.2008. It was in this background that the suit was filed and during the pendency thereof the application was filed under section 151 CPC by the respondents/plaintiffs for directing the petitioners/defendants to pay the user charges @ Rs.15,000/- per month which came to be allowed vide the impugned order.

4. The said order has been assailed in the present petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. AT the outset, it is noted that the suit was filed against two defendants namely Anuradha Chaturvedi and her husband L.N. Chaturvedi. The impugned order was passed against both of them. However, it is only Anuradha Chaturvedi who has assailed the impugned order in the instant petition. Her husband Mr. L.N. Chaturvedi seems to have no grievance against the said order.

7. The impugned order is assailed on the ground that the rent was never increased to Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner admitted having given a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondents. But, the plea that was taken by her in this regard was that this cheque was given towards security of friendly loan that was to be given by the respondent/plaintiff, which, however, was not given by him and consequently, the aforesaid cheque came to be dishonoured.

8. This plea was, apparently unbelievable and cannot appeal to any reason. Undisputedly, both the parties were not having cordial relations since from the expiry of tenancy by efflux of time on 30.06.2004 and on account of the petitioners defaulting in making payment of rent. In such circumstances it was extremely improbable that the respondent would have offered or agreed to give friendly loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner. It also could not be believed that the petitioner while being in arrears of rent from 01.06.2006, would have given a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondents as security for the loan to be taken by her from them. This, all seems to be a story that has been set up by the petitioner. Further, it is also noticed that there is no clear and categorical denial of plea by the petitioner regarding increase of rent from

Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/-per month and thereafter to Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned ADJ has recorded a finding of fact in this regard that the rent was increased from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per month and from Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month and that there was no specific denial thereto of this fact by the petitioners. Prima facie there does not appear to be any infirmity in the recording of this fact by the learned ADJ. There is nothing which may call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

JULY 13 , 2012 awanish