SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND DAMAGES
BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (DISTRICT ), DELHI SUIT NO. OF 20..
IN THE MATTER OF,
Mrs. Surjit Kaur Sahi W/O Mr. Avinder Singh Sahi S/O
Both R/o ,Chandigarh
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110029
Through its Chairman/Managing Director
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL USE AND OCCUPATION
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
- The plaintiff being the owners of flat no……… Nehru Place, New Delhi let out the said flat to M/s. National Power Transmission Corporation Limited (a Government of India undertaking) now called as Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, having their registered office at Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019 for a period of three years with effect from ……(date) vide unregistered Lease deed (copy annexed as Annexure ‘A’). The delivery of the possession of the said premises was simultaneous on the said date.
- That the period of three years referred above starting from …….. expired on ……. That after the expiry of the said Lease the defendant became a month to month tenant of the plaintiffs.
- That the plaintiffs being in need of the premises in question approached the defendant for vacation of the same on various dates (give dates). However, the defendant who were approached through their officers did not agree to the plaintiff’s demand. The plaintiffs thereafter served a legal notice through their Counsel, Shri (copy annexed as Annexure ‘B’ ) under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the said tenancy on mid-night of…….(date)
- That the defendant received the plaintiff’s legal notice U/s. 106 of the Transfer of property Act on …..(date) i.e. clear 15 days before the last day of ……(date) and thus is a valid notice under the Transfer of Property Act (proof of the service of legal notice is annexed to same as Annexure ‘B’)
- That however, the defendant even after receiving the said legal notice have neither vacated the premises nor shown their intention to vacate. Thus the defendant from ……(date) are in wrongful use and occupation @ Rs. 1,000/- per day as the rate of rent in the area are for such premises prevailing and the plaintiffs have rightly assessed the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per day. The same rate was demanded in the legal notice dated That since the premises were needed by the plaintiffs for their own purposes they will have to take on rent the premises of same size in the same area where the flat is situated and the plaintiffs have done a market survey during the search for the flat and found that the rate of rent in the area is Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per sq. feet. The plaintiffs own flat which is 370 sq. ft. super area will be available in the market for Rs. 37000/- to 55,500/- per month. The plaintiffs does not have means to take on rent a flat for own purposes at such high rates and thus needed the flat and for this reason asked the defendant to vacate the premises.
- The defendant is presently paying a monthly rent of Rs. 6808/- per month (Rupees six thousand eight hundred eight) for the plaintiffs flat measuring 370 sq. ft. super area. The plaintiffs premises are not governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act as the rate of rent is more than Rs. 3,500/- and thus the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the matter.
- The cause of action in the present case arose on when the plaintiffs approached the defendant for the vacation of the said flat. The cause of action further arose on when the plaintiffs again approached the officers of the defendant for the vacation of the flat who however did not oblige. The cause of action further arose when the plaintiffs served a legal notice dated …… through their advocate Shri Ajit Panday asking the defendant to vacate the same by ……. The said notice was duly received on …… However, the defendant did not vacate the flat in question. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one.
- That since the property whose possession is sought is situated in Delhi. The Lease for the premises was executed in Delhi and delivery of possession made in Delhi. And since the premises are not covered by Delhi Rent Control Act. The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the matter.
- That the court fee payable has been calculated advalorem as per the chart/section 7 of the Court Fee Act on the annual rent received by the plaintiffs. The annual rent is Rs. …………..arrived at by multiplying monthly rent of Rs by 12. On this a court fee of Rs. ……. is paid. The plaintiffs undertake to pay any additional court fee that may be found due by the Hon’ble court.
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) pass a decree for ejectment against the defendant and in favour of plaintiffs ;
(ii) pass a decree for payment of damages @ Rs. 1,000/- per day for wrongful use and occupation of the flat by the defendant ;
(iii) Any other relief deemed fit and proper may also be given.
(iv) Costs of the case may also be given.
Verified at Delhi on … day….. of , 20… that the contents of paras 1 to …. are true to our personal knowledge and those of paras … to …. are true & correct on the basis of legal advice received and believed to be true. Last para is prayer to the Hon’ble Court.
[NOTE : This plaint has to be supported by an affidavit]