IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAILENDER MALIK, LD. SCJ/RC/NW/ROHINI COURTS/DELHI Suit No. 17/15 Ms, Sudesh Batra Wio Sh. S.P. Batra Rio Flat No.AP-71-D, Near / Opposite Vaishali Pitam Pura, Delhi Plaintiff Vs Sh. Kapil Arora S/o Sh. Subhash Chand Arora Rio DDA built free hold MIG Flat bearing no BP-92, 3" floor, Pitam Pura, Delhi. Aslo at Mis Super Medicos W2Z-1408, Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh, Delhi Defendant Date of Institution Date of reserving judgment Date of announcing judgment 15.01.2015 23.07.2015 23.07.2015 Judgment This is a suit for possession and other reliefs against defendant in respect of property bearing MIG flat No. BP 392, 3" floor, Pitam Pura, Delhi. It is stated that plaintiff had let out the above said suit property with monthly rent of Rs.13300/- excluding electricity and water charges w.e.f 01.02.2014 for the period of 11 months under written agreement dated 13.02.14 which was duly registered before Sub Registrar. It is stated that at the time of creation of tenancy defendant had deposited Rs.30,000/- as interest free security amount which was refundable at the time of vacation of premises upon expiry of the same. It is alleged that defendant is in arrear of rent since 1 Nov 2014. Defendant had given cheque bearing no.345535 dated 01.11.2014 drawn on Canara Bank, Pitam Pura Branch, but when said cheque was presented for encashment, same retured dishonored with remarks “fund insufficient’. It is stated that since tenancy was created for period of 11 months and tenancy has come to end by afflux of time i.e 31.12.2014 and thus tenancy has already determined. It is stated that legal notice dated 01.12.2014 was sent to defendant but when defendant failed to send the reply of the same, present suit was filed for relief of possession regarding property in question i.e MIG flat No. BP 392, 3° floor, Pitam Pura, Delhi. Plaintiff has also prayed for decree of sum of Rs.27987.75/- on account of arrear of rent with interest @ 15% as well as plaintiff has also sought mesne profit @ Rs.26600/- til vacation of the premises. Defendant was duly served with the summons however, after filling of vakalatnama on behalf of counsel for the defendant, time was given for filling of WS, however, despite giving repeated opportunities WS was not filed and consequently, defence of the defendant was struck off on account of not filling of WS, However, in the mean time plaintiff and defendant entered in to the settlement on 31.03.2015 whereby defendant gave the statement that he is tenant in the premises in question with monthly rent of Rs.13300/-. Defendant undertook to vacate the premises on or before 30.06.2015 by making complete payment of arrear of rent up to date, However, defendant despite giving the statement / undertaking, failed to vacate the tenanted premises by 30.06.2015, Thereafter, father of the defendant had given statement on 01.07.2015 undertaking that premises will be vacated on 10.07.2015, even thereafter, premises was not vacated as per the settlement’ undertaking. Despite giving repeated opportunities to settle the matter, when premises was not vacated evidence of PW-1 was recorded on 14.07.2015. On the same day father of the defendant had also handed over the keys of the premises in question and gave another statement to make complete payment of arrear of rent up to the vacating of the tenanted premises Today Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff had given the separate statement whereby it is stated that since as per the undertaking of the defendant complete payment of arrear of rent has not been paid by defendant. Therefore, plaintiff wants the matter to be proceeded on merits. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the record carefully. Having considered the facts and circumstances, the fact that defendant is tenant in the premises in question with month rent of Rs.13300/- is not disputed. The fact that tenancy was for period of 11 months and same came to end by afflux of time is also not disputed. Considering the undisputed fact and also considering the fact that defendant despite givingundertaking, failed to comply with whole of terms. | find that plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession, but possession of premises in question has already been given by defendant to plaintiff on 14.07.2015. Therefore, suit is decreed for arrear of rent for sum of Rs.26,600/- in respect of 2 months rent w.e.f 01.11.2014 to 31.12.2014 and plaintiff is also entitled for relief of mesne profits @ Rs.13300/- from 14” Jan 2015 till 14" July 2015, the day when the tenanted premises was handed over to plaintiff. Plaintiff is also given interest @ 18% on arrear of rent. Suit stands accordingly decreed. Decree sheet be prepared, File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court On 23.07.2015 (SHAILENDER MALIK) SCJ/RC/NW/ROHINI COURTS/DELHIAt 4:00 pm. Pr. Husband of the plaintiff in person. None for defendant. Vide my separate judgment of even date, plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession, arrear of rent for sum of Rs.26,600/- in respect of 2 months rent w.ef 01.11.2014 to 31.12.2014 and plaintiff is also entitled for relief of mesne profits @ Rs.13300/- from 14” Jan 2015 till July 2015, the day when the tenanted premises was handed over to plaintiff. Plaintiff is also given interest @ 18% on arrear of rent, Suit stands accordingly decreed. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room. (SHAILENDER MALIK) SCJ/RC/NW/ROHINI COURTS/DELH! 23.07.2015