IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA

COURTS, AT NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No._____/16

IN THE MATTER OF:

Prabha Rustogi
W/O Sh. Ramesh Kumar Rustogi,
R/O T-16, Rampuri Building, Gopinath Bazar,
Delhi Cantt-110010 ... Plaintiff

VERSUS

Roopmala Tiwari
W/O Sh. Anil Tiwari
R/O A-137, 2nd Floor, Gali No.5, North Block,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092 ... Defendant

SUIT FOR POSSESSION, ARREARS AND MESNE PROFITS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Plaintiff is the owner of the property No.A-137, 2 nd

Floor, Gali No.5, North Block, West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi-
110092 (hereinafter referred to as ‘demised premise’). That the site
plan of the demised premise is annexed herewith as Annexure P-
1. That the plaintiff is the authorized owner of the said property.
The copy of the title documents are annexed herewith as
Annexure P-2.
2. That the plaintiff had entered into a Lease Deed with the
defendant on 05/06/2017 for a period of 11 months which
started from 01 April 2017 @ monthly rent of Rs.9,500/- per
month for the property bearing no.A-137, 2nd floor, Gali No.5,
North Block, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092. The copy of the
lease deed dated 05/06/2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure
P-3.

3. That recently from past more than 6 (six) months the

defendant has been committing defaults in payment of monthly
rent. That the defendant has defaulted in payment of the rent
amount since the month of August, 2017 and it is also pertinent
to mention here that the lease term/tenure has expired on
28/02/2018, in terms of the agreement, as such the plaintiff has
time and again requested the defendant to pay the rent amount of
last six months which defendant has not paid till today even after
numerous requests from the defendant.

4. That it is pertinent to mention here that the contract

mandatorily provides for the rent to be paid on or before 7 th of
each month which has not been paid by the defendant.

5. That the plaintiff finally Vide Legal Notice dated

18/01/2018 terminated the tenancy and directed the defendant
to vacate the demise premise within a period of six months. The
copy of Legal notice dated 18/01/2018 along with its postal
receipt and tracking report are annexed herewith as Annexure P-
4 (Colly). The said notice was sent invoking clause 6 of the said
lease deed. That in any case the lease period was only till
28/02/2018 in terms of clause 1 of the lease deed dated
05/06/2017 and as such the lease has also expired with efflux of
time.

6. That the plaintiff is not interested to keep the defendant in

the said demised premises and the defendant has already become
unauthorized occupier of the demised premise due to the
activation of clause 1 as well as clause 6 of the agreement.

7. That the demised premise as on date would fetch a rent of

Rs.10,000 -12,000/- per month and as the defendant is holding
the demised premise without permission of the plaintiff, who is
the authorised owner, therefore he is liable to pay the said
amount as occupational charges.

8. It has also recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiff

that the defendant has been illegally using the demise premise for
wrong purposes.

9. That the cause of action arose on 05/06/2017 when the

plaintiff entered into a lease deed with respect to the demised
premise with the defendant (Tenant). The further cause of action
arose when the rent for the month of August’ 2017 as the
defendant stopped paying the rent of the demised premise to the
plaintiff and has not paid the same till date. That cause of action
also arose on 18/01/2018 when the legal notice was sent to the
defendant to which no reply till date has been received. The cause
of action arose on 18.02.2018 and 28.02.2018 when the lease was
terminated in terms of clause 6 and clause 1 of the lease deed
respectively. That the cause of action also arose at various
occasions when the defendant failed to pay the
occupational/usage charges. That the cause of action is still
subsisting as the defendant continues to be in unauthorised
occupation.

10. That this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction in the present

matter as the subject property lies within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

11. That the present value of the subject matter is Rs.

1,14,000/- for the relief of possession and Rs.66,500/- for the
purpose of recovery of arrears on which the total and appropriate
 court fees of Rs.4,150/- has been paid and as such this Hon’ble
Court enjoys the pecuniary jurisdiction in the present matter.

PRAYER

In view of facts and circumstances of the case it is prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

(a) Pass a decree for the recovery of possession of the Subject

Premises, i.e. property No. A-137, 2nd Floor, Gali No.5, North
Block, West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi-110092, measuring 41.80
sq.mt (approx) as more clearly shown in site Plan,

(b) Pass an Order and Decree for payment of arrears of rent

amounting to Rs.66,500/- by the defendant in favour of the
plaintiff along-with interest.

(c) Pass an Order for payment of occupational and usage

charges (mense profits) amounting to Rs. 12,000/- Per Month
till the vacation of the demised premise.

(d) Pass an Order restraining the defendant from creating any

third party interest in the demised premise, and

(e) Direct the defendant to pay Cost of the Suit to the plaintiff.

(f) Pass any other order(s) deemed just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

PLAINTIFF

THROUGH

NEW DELHI SHEKHAR NANAVATY

DATE: (ADVOCATE)
Verification:

I, the above named Plaintiff do hereby verify that the contents of

paragraph No.1 to 8 of my above plaint are true to my knowledge and
Para 9 to 11 as told to me and believed to be true.

Verified at Delhi this day of , 2018

PLAINTIFF
 IN THE COURT OF SH. JAY THAREJA, CIVIL JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, AT NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No._____/18

IN THE MATTER OF:

Prabha Rustogi ... Plaintiff

VERSUS

Roopmala Tiwari ... Defendant

AFFIDAVIT

I, Prabha Rustogi, W/O Sh. Ramesh Kumar Rustogi, Aged about 57

years, R/O T-16, Shri Ram puri Building, Gopinath Bazaar, Delhi
Cantt-110010, do hereby, on solemn affirmation declare as under:-

1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above noted Plaint and thus well
conversant with the facts of the same. I am, therefore, competent
to swear this Affidavit.

2. That the accompanying amended Plaint has been drafted by my

Counsel on my instructions. I have read the same and the same is
true & correct. The contents of the Plaint are not being repeated
for the sake of brevity and the same may be read as part of this
Affidavit.

NEW DELHI DEPONENT

DATE:

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at New Delhi on this day of 2018 that the contents of

my above Affidavit are true & correct to my knowledge and nothing
material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, AT NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No._____/16

MEMO OF PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF:

Prabha Rustogi
W/O Sh. Ramesh Kumar Rustogi,
R/O T-16, Rampuri Building, Gopinath Bazar,
Delhi Cantt-110010 ... Plaintiff

VERSUS

Roopmala Tiwari
W/O Sh. Anil Tiwari
R/O A-137, 2nd Floor, Gali No.5, North Block,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092 ... Defendant

THROUGH

NEW DELHI SHEKHAR NANAVATY

DATE: (ADVOCATE)

Email id: [email protected]

 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURT, AT NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No._____/18

IN THE MATTER OF:

Prabha Rustogi ... Plaintiff

VERSUS

Roopmala Tiwari ... Defendant

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 15 A RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION

151 CPC.

Respectfully submitted as under:-

1. That the Plaintiff has filled the above noted suit for possession
and damages and mesne profits against the Defendant which is
pending before this Hon’ble Court for adjudication.
2. That the defendant has occupied the demised premise in an
unauthorized manner and is holding on to the demised premise
without any consent of the plaintiff after the termination of the lease
deed and has been making irregular payments with respect to the
occupational charges. That admittedly the demised premises, does not
belong to the defendant. That the defendant had been paying Rs.
12,000/- PM as occupational charges for the same.
3. That it is therefore submitted that the defendant has also
admitted that certain amount was being paid to the plaintiff in their
own reply to legal notice, which clarifies the title as well as the amount
which would be due to the plaintiff.
4. That it is submitted that the plaintiff herein has a prima facie case
and the balance of convenience also lies in the favour of the plaintiff.
5. That the defendant will not be prejudiced if an order for
depositing/delivering of damages/ mesne profits is passed in favour of
the plaintiffs and against the defendant under Order 15 A (1) CPC as
 the demised premise is already in the occupation and being used by
the defendant herein.
6. That in fact the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been very clear
while interpreting the Order 15 A of the CPC in case titled as ‘Prem
Lata v. Raghubir Rai & Ors.’ wherein the Order was passed by HMJ
Murlidhar.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to pass an Order in favour of the plaintiffs and against
the defendant for deposit/ delivery of damages/ mesne amounting to
Rs.12, 000/- per month, keeping in view the increase in current market
value of rented premises, to the plaintiffs herein in terms of Order 15A
Rule 1, in the interest of justice.

NEW DELHI PLAINTIFF

DATE:
THROUGH

SHEKHAR NANAVATY
(ADVOCATE)
 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURT, AT NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No._____/18

IN THE MATTER OF:

Prabha Rustogi ... Plaintiff

VERSUS

Roopmala Tiwari ... Defendant

AFFIDAVIT

I, Prabha Rustogi, W/O Sh. Ramesh Kumar Rustogi, Aged about 57

years, R/O T-16, Shri Ram puri Building, Gopinath Bazaar, Delhi
Cantt-110010, do hereby, on solemn affirmation declare as under:-

1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above noted Plaint and thus well
conversant with the facts of the same. I am, therefore, competent
to swear this Affidavit. I have understood the same in vernacular.

2. That the accompanying Application under Order 15A Rule 1 R/w

151 CPC has been drafted by my Counsel on my instructions. I
have read the same and the same is true & correct. The contents
of the application are not being repeated for the sake of brevity
and the same may be read as part of this Affidavit.

NEW DELHI DEPONENT

DATE:

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at New Delhi on this day of 2016 that the contents of

my above Affidavit are true & correct to my knowledge and nothing
material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURT, AT NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No._____/18

IN THE MATTER OF:

Prabha Rustogi ... Plaintiff

VERSUS

Roopmala Tiwari ... Defendant

COURT FEES

NEW DELHI PLAINTIFF

DATE:
THROUGH
SHEKHAR NANAVATY
(ADVOCATE)