IN THE COURT OF SH.

SACHIN JAIN, ADJ, (SOUTH WEST)-02,

DWARKA COURTS,NEW DELHI

SUIT NO. 340/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms FARAH AHMED PLAINTIFF

V/S

SAJJAN KUMAR AND ANR DEFENDANT

DOH:20/09/2022

REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Most respectfully Showeth:

REPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. Para 1 of PO is wrong and denied. It is wrong

and denied that the present eviction suit

filed by the plaintiff is misconceived and not

maintainable as the same is not filed by a

proper person. Especificaly it is wrong and

denied that the suit of the plaintiff is

liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

2. Para 2 of PO is wrong and denied. It is wrong

and denied that there is no tenant – landlord

relationship between the plaintiff and

defendants. It is wrong and denied that the

plaintiff is not the owner of the suit

premises as claimed. Furthermore it is wrong

and denied that the defendant never tendered

 any rent to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is

neither landlord nor the owner of the suit

premises.

3. Para 3 of PO is wrong and denied. It is wrong

and denied that the plaintiff has failed to

place on record any document showing the

ownership of the tenanted premises.

4. Para 4 of PO is wrong and denied. It is wrong

and denied that the defendants are filing the

short written statement as of now. The

contention of the next line is justifiable.

5. Para 5 of PO is wrong and denied. It is wrong

and denied that the plaintiff has not paid a

proper court fee on the plaint. If Court can

grant permission plaint will pay the fees. It

is wrong and denied that the plaint is liable

to be rejected on this ground alone.

REPLICATION TO REPLY ON MERITS

1. That the contents of para no.1 of the reply on

merits is wrong and denied and the corresponding

para 1 of the petition is reiterated as correct.

It is specifically denied that the plaintiff is

the owner of the suit premises. It is further

 submitted here that the plaintiff is the owner of

the suit premises.

2. That the contents of para no.2 of the reply on

merits is wrong and denied and the corresponding

para 2 of the petition is reiterated as correct.

It is vehemently denied that the suit premises was

purchased by the father of the plaintiff. And

hence denied that it is absolutely without any

ground to talk about any relinquishment deed when

there is no title in favour of the father of the

plaintiff. Further it is wrong and denied that the

plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit

property. It is denied that the documents placed

on record does not confer any right either on the

father of the plaintiff or on the plaintiff

herself.

3. That para no. 3 of the reply on merits is wrong

and denied and the corresponding para 3 of the

petition is reiterated as correct. It is

specifically wrong and hence denied that the

father of the plaintiff inducted the defendants as

tenant in the suit property as he was well known

to them. The contention of the next line totally

wrong and denied.

4. That para no.4 of the reply on merits need no

reply as far as the matter of record is concerned.

The other contents of para no.4 is wrong and

denied. It is specifically submitted that there is

reason to the defendants to pay rent to the

plaintiff as she is the owner/ landlady. The

defendants are liable to pay any arrears of rent

or maintenance charges to the plaintiff.

5. That para no.5 to 7 of the reply on merits is

wrong and denied and the corresponding para no. 5

to 7 of the petition is reiterated as correct. It

is specifically wrong and denied that there was no

occasion for the plaintiff to ask the defendants

to vacate the suit premise as she never became

owner of the suit premises. Further it is

submitted that the defendants never have been

paying rental to the landlord and maintenance

charges on the regular basis.

8. That para no.8 of the reply on merits is wrong

and denied except that the total amount of

arrear of rent payable by the defendant till

01/10/2010 work to be Rs.67,500/- calculated @

Rs.4500/- per month and the interest @ 24%

worked out to be Rs.10,800/- approximately and

 this fact is also admitted by the Defendant in

her W.S.

The corresponding para 8 of the petition

is reiterated as correct.

It is specifically wrong and denied that

rent upto date has been paid by the defendant

to the plaintiff or that inspite of repeated

request no receipt was issued by the plaintiff

for the same or that as on date no liability

is due towards the defendant or that it is the

plaintiff who has to pay a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant. It is further

submitted that no such alleged amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- had ever been taken by the

plaintiff.

9. That para no.9 of the reply on merits is wrong

and denied except that the defendant has no

right to remain in the possession of the

premises. The defendant is illegal occupant

and is thus liable to vacate the suit

premises.

It is further submitted here that this

above fact has been admitted in the

corresponding para no.9 of Written Statement

filed by the defendant.

 The corresponding para 9 of the petition

is reiterated as correct.

10. That para no.10 of the reply on merits is

wrong and denied and the corresponding para 10

of the petition is reiterated as correct. It

is wrong and denied that the legal notice was

send on false and frivolous ground just to

usurp the money of the defendant.

11. That para no.11 of the reply on merits is

wrong and denied and the corresponding para 11

of the petition is reiterated as correct. It

is wrong and denied that the rent upto date

has been paid by the defendant to the

plaintiff or that inspite of the repeated

request no receipt was issued by the plaintiff

for the same or that as on date no liability

is due towards the defendant or that it is the

plaintiff who has pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

to the defendant.

12-14 That para no.12 to 14 of the reply on merits

is wrong and denied and the corresponding

para 12 to 14 of the petition is reiterated

as correct.
 15. That para no.15 of the reply on merits is wrong

and denied and the corresponding para 15 of the

petition is reiterated as correct. It is wrong

and denied that no cause of action arose in

favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendant or that the suit of the plaintiff is

liable to be dismissed. It is wrong and denied

that the plaintiff is having an evil desire to

usurp the money of the defendant or that the

plaintiff is not entitled for any relief

claimed in the suit.

16-19.That para no.16 to 19 of the Written Statement

needs no reply and the corresponding paras 16-

19 of the petition is reiterated as correct

The prayer clause of the written statement is

wrong, false and hence denied and it is prayed

that the plaint may kindly be decreed as per

the prayer made by the plaintiff against the

defendant with heavy costs.

PLAINTIFF
DELHI
DATED: THORUGH
 ABHISHEK KAUSHIK
ADVOCATE

VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi on day of March 2011,

that the contents of the preliminary objections of para

1 to 4 and replication on merits of paras 1-18 are true

and correct and last para is prayer clause to this

Hon’ble Court and are true and correct to best of my

knowledge and belief and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA, ADJ, ROHINI

COURTS, DELHI

SUIT NO.821/2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT UMA VERMA PLAINTIFF

V/S

SMT RENU DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

I, UMA VERMA W/O DR. DHARMENDER VERMA R/O D-13/67,

SECTOR-8, ROHINI, DELHI, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND
DECLARE AS UNDER:-

1. That I am the plaintiff in the present case and

am well conversant with the facts and
 circumstances of the present matter and hence
competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That accompanying replication has been drafted

by my counsel upon my instructions and the
contents of the same are read over to me in
vernacular language and the contents of the same
are true and correct to my knowledge which are
not being repeated herein for the sake of
brevity.

Deponent
Verification:-Verified on this on day of March 2011,
that the contents of the above affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Deponent