1. Pinki Chopra, W/o Sh. Brij Chopra, R/O B­191, Greater Kailash Part­I, New Delhi. ......Defendant CS No. 592/14 Gulshan Bir Kaur vs Pinki Chopra Page no:1/34 SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND MESNE PROFITS & RECOVERY Date of institution : 30.05.1996 Reserver for Judgment : 03.03.2015 Date of Judgment : 09.03.2015 JUDGMENT 1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the present suit for Ejectment and Mesne Profits & Recovery filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. 2. The relevant facts which are inevitable for deciding the present suit are that the plaintiff is owner /landlord in respect of the premises bearing No. B­191, Greater Kailash­I, New Delhi. The plaintiff has let out portion of the first floor of premises B­191, Greater Kailash­I,New Delhi (herein after referred as suit property) to the defendant comprising of two bed rooms, drawing, dining, two attached toilets, small balcony on the rear­side of the first floor on a monthly rent of Rs.3200/­ p.m. excluding water and electricity charges. The tenancy was according to the English Calender month. It is averred in the plaint that in terms of provisions as enumerated under Section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act, the plaintiff served a notice dt. 19.12.1991 calling upon the defendant to increase the rent by 10%. This notice was duly CS No. 592/14 Gulshan Bir Kaur vs Pinki Chopra Page no:2/34 served on defendant and the reply of the same was also received from the defendant by their lawyer. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant sent a cheque for Rs. 9,600/­ for the rent of three months @ Rs. 3200/­, however, the rent which was sent by the defendant alongwith the reply through her advocate was not according to the revised or increased rent @ of Rs.3,520/­ per month. It is also averred in the plaint that the defendant is liable to pay the sum of Rs.320/­ pm as difference towards the increased rent w.e.f. 01.01.1992. Thus the defendant has to pay differences in rent w.e.f. 01.01.1992. The defendant has also not paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1993. It is also averred in the plaint that the defendant had sent the rent at old rent rate i.e. Rs.3,200/­ per month and not at revised rate i.e. Rs.3,520/­ per month, which has become due in view of the amendment in DRC Act and as provided Under Section 6 A of DRC Act. The Plaintiff had sent a notice of termination of tenancy to the defendant vide notice dt. 06.04.1992 and the same was returned with the remark that the defendant was not found at the given address. Plaintiff thereafter sent another notice terminating tenancy of defendant dt. 02.09.1994 and the same was also returned with the remark that the defendant was not found at the given address. It is averred that defendant has been avoiding the receipt of the CS No. 592/14 Gulshan Bir Kaur vs Pinki Chopra Page no:3/34 notice with an ulterior motives. It is also stated that defendant has not vacated the premises despite termination and as such the defendant is liable to pay mesne profits @ Rs.30,000/­ per month towards the use and occupation charges of the premises as the defendant is retaining the premises illegally and unauthorizedly after the termination of the tenancy. It is prayed through the present suit that the (i) A decree for Ejectment be passed against the defendant in respect of First Floor of premises bearing No. B­191, Gre