Ashok Kumar Karan v. Satish Gupta

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R. MIDHA, J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 255/2001 ASHOK KUMAR KARAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Vijay Tandon, Adv. versus SATISH GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Madan Lal Sharma, Adv. and Mr.Brijesh Saini, Adv. DATE OF DECISION: % 23.09.2008 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) CM No.6192/2008 1. This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the appellant praying that the appellant be permitted to lead additional evidence. 2. Without arguing the application, learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent state that the application may be disposed of recording their consent, by allowing the same to a limited extent, in that, reply to a legal notice sent by the respondent as received to by the appellant on 10.9.2000, copy whereof has been filed along with the application, may be taken on record and treated as a proved document. 3. For facility of reference the said document has been marked as Mark 'X'. 4. The application stands disposed of. RFA No.255/2001 1. Learned counsel for the parties state that the appeal may be heard for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Appellant has suffered a decree in a suit filed by respondent-landlord who claimed that the appellant was in arrears of rent, water and electricity charges in sum of Rs.1,01,546/-. Case of the landlord was that the appellant was inducted as a tenant in respect of 2 rooms, toilet, kitchen and bathroom on the second floor of property No.693/1, Gali No.3, Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat at a monthly rent of Rs.2,300/- and exercising right under the Delhi Rent Control Act, after 3 years of the tenancy a legal notice dated 2.9.2000 was served calling upon the appellant to pay rent increased by 10% of the agreed rent with effect from 15.10.2000. Thus, rent with effect from 15.10.2000 was stated to have been increased to Rs.2,530/-. 4. In the written statement, it was pleaded by the appellant that he was inducted as a tenant at a rent of Rs.500/- per month. The rent was stated to have been paid till 14.6.2000. 5. In respect of the charges payable for electricity and water it was stated that the appellant was always willing to pay the same but the landlord was intentionally not accepting the same. 6. The notice referred to in the plaint towards increase of rent was responded to by accepting receipt thereof but justification for non-compliance thereof given was that the notice was illegal as it sought enhancement of rent from Rs.2,300/- to Rs.2,530/- but rent was Rs.500/- per month. 7. Needless to state, on the rival pleadings of the parties, the only material issued which arose for determination was whether the rent of the tenanted premises at the time of inception of the tenancy was Rs.2,300/- per month or Rs.500/- per month. 8. It be noted that there is no written lease executed between the parties. 9. The landlord sought to prove his case with reference to Ex.PW-1, a receipt stated to have been signed by the appellant while tendering rent. The receipt is dated 20.4.1998. It records the rent at Rs.2,300/- per month. It records tender of rent from 15.3.1998 to 14.4.1998. 10. The second evidence relied upon by the landlord was Ex.PW-1/8 being a lease executed between the appellant and one Hans Raj where-under appellant took on lease, for a period of 11 months, 2 rooms on the first floor and 1 room on the second floor of property bearing No.661/1B, Ghatni Ghati Road, Anand Parbat, New Delhi. 11. With respect to PW-1/1, since appellant has denied his signatures thereon, both parties i.e. the landlord and the appellant led opinion of an expert witness. Needless to state the expert witness of the appellant gave justification in support of his report that the signatures of the appel