Vipin Kumar

A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION & ARREARS OF RENT IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, PUNE AT PUNE Civil Suit No. _/ 200_ Smt _M_V_D_) age 50 years, occupation - business, ) Plaintiff resident of 60 Erandwane,) PUNE 411 004.) Versus Shri _V_M__L_) age 40 years, occupation - service,) Defendant resident of 600 Rasta Peth,) PUNE 411 011.) A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND ARREARS OF RENT The plaintiff above named submits this plaint, praying to state as follows: 1. Description of Suit Property : All that piece and parcel of premises consisting of three rooms along with attached sanitary block totally admeasuring 900 sft situate on the ground floor in the old building standing at CTS No. 600 of Rasta Peth, Pune City. 2. That the property fully described in para 1 above is owned by the present plaintiff, and the defendant is a monthly tenant therein. 3. That the month of tenancy is according to the English calendar, commencing on the first day in a month and ending on the last day of the same month. 4. That the monthly rent for the suit premises is @ Rs. 150/- exclusive of all other charges and taxes. 5. That the defendant was irregular in making the payment of the rent from the beginning, and on that account, the plaintiff had previously filed a civil suit against the defendant for possession in the Small Causes Court, Pune, and eventually the said suit came to be compromised. In that suit, the defendant had given in writing an undertaking that he would be paying the rent regularly, i.e. month to month basis. 6. That irrespective of that, the defendant is irregular in the payment of rent and is in the habit of paying the rent occasionally and pays the rent for a period of 5/6 months or sometimes even 8/9 months also. Thus, the defendant has become a defaulter in the payment of rent, as he failed to observe the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at by and between the parties in the previous civil suit No. 420/1996. 7. That the defendant is occupying the suit premises for the last thirty years, and from the beginning, he using the suit premises in such a fashion so as to cause damage and waste to the said property. Of the late, the defendant has demolished the wall between the two rooms, and he has fixed a door. He has also demolished another wall and fixed a window therein. While doing so, he has not obtained any permission of the plaintiff. Thus, the act of the defendant in demolishing the walls and constructing or erecting door and window amounts to breach of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. 8. That the defendant without any permission of this plaintiff has constructed permanent partitions in the suit premises. 9. That the defendant has taken a water connection from the adjacent property without the consent of this plaintiff. In doing so, he has caused damage to the suit property, as he was required to lay down the pipeline from the adjacent property. 10. That the suit premises are admeasuring 900 sqft, while the family of the defendant consists of only three members. On the other hand, the plaintiff is carrying on a business on the first floor and running a lodge there. The plaintiffs two sons are looking after the said business. The nature of the said business is such that one of the sons should be residing permanently in the suit property only. However, there is no other premises available for occupation, and the suit property is, therefore, required by the plaintiff for her and her family members for her bonafide personal occupation. Similarly, the area of the suit premises being 900 sqft, the defendant is not in need of so large premises, and hence, the suit premises are much more than the actual need of the defendant. 11. That the defendant is using premises in such a fashion that he is causing nuisance and annoyance to the other tenants as well as lodgers. 12. That the defendant is in the habit of making false complaints to the Pune Municipal Corporation and is trying to harass this plaintiff. The defendant has recently made a false complaint to the Pune Municipal Corporation seeking a permission for urgent repairs in respect of the suit premises. The defendant managed to get the authorities of the Pune Municipal Corporation moved in that behalf, and accordingly, a notice by the Pune Municipal Corporation has been served on this plaintiff. 13. That present plaintiff also served a notice on the Pune Municipal Commissioner, informing the factual position and has made it clear that there is no such necessity of urgent repairs. However, the defendant is instigating the Pune Municipal Corporation authorities for taking action against the plaintiff. Thus, the behaviour of the defendant amounts to nuisance. 14. That for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff also served a notice on the defendant through her lawyer, on, terminating the tenancy of the defendant and calling upon him to vacate the suit premises and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the same by the end of March 200, but even though the defendant has duly received the said notice, he did not even care to reply the same, and also not vacated the suit premises, and hence, this suit. 15. Particulars of Claim : Rs. 2,000/-_Arrears of Rent. Rs. 2,000/-_Mesne Profits. Rs. 1,000/- _Notice Charges. Rs. 5,000/- _Total Amount Due and Claimed Rs. -NIL - _ Amount Less Received Rs. 5,000/- _ Net Amount Due and Claimed 16. That the cause of action for the present suit first arose on, when the defendant refused to vacate the suit premises, and the same has since then been arising every day thereafter, and hence, the suit filed today is well within limitation. 17. That the property is situate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this court, and hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and decide this suit. 18. That the proper court fee is paid herewith. 19. That the plaintiff, therefore, prays that - (A)It be ordered that the defendant should vacate the suit premises; (B)The arrears of rent be recovered from the defendant; (C)Vacant possession of the suit premises be restored to the plaintiff;\ (D)The defendant be ordered to pay unto this plaintiff the amount of money claim and also mesne profits @ Rs.p.m. from the date of filing this suit till recovery of possession; (E) The costs of this plaintiff be paid from the defendant; and (F) Any other orders in the interest of justice be kindly passed. Pune,Sd/- MVD Dated:PLAINTIFF Sd/- x X x ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF VERIFICATION I, Smt. MVD, the present opponent, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of this statement in paras 1 to 19 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, so I have signed hereunder. Sd/- MVD PLAINTIFF