THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I.A. No.659/ 2010 in C.S. (OS) No. 86/ 2010
Reserved on : June 01, 2011
Decided on : July 04, 2011
MADHU SEHGAL ......Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, with
Ms. Veera Angrish, Advs.
Versus
SHRI RAJESH SHARMA ....Defendant
Through: Mr. Sudhir Vodatel, with
Mr. Bhupesh Saini, Advs.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? MANMOHAN SINGH, J
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the present interim application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC seeking directions for the defendant to pay the admitted amount of arrears of rent of Rs.12,25,000/- to the plaintiff for the period of June 2009 to December 2009 as well as use and occupation charges of the suit premises @ Rs.30,000/- per day, in CS (OS) 86/2010 Page 1 of 8 terms of the lease agreement/rent note with effect from the date of the filing of the present suit.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession of 119 C, Lane No.3, Anupam Gardens, Sainik Farms, New Delhi- 110068, recovery of arrears of rent and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, disposing, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.
3. It is stated by the plaintiff, that in the month of February 2009, the plaintiff had let out the suit property to the defendant for residential purposes for eleven months with effect from 07.02.2009 for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,75,000/- . The defendant deposited a security of Rs.3,50,000/- and paid the rent for the month of February and March and requested the plaintiff to adjust the security deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- towards the rent for the month of April and May. Thereafter, he issued two cheques towards the rent for the month of June and July, but both these cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, the defendant not only promised to pay the monthly rent but also offered to vacate the suit property. But CS (OS) 86/2010 Page 2 of 8 the defendant has consistently failed to honour his promises and undertakings. A sum of Rs.12,25,000/- is due from the defendant as rent for the period from June 2009 to December 2009 as mentioned in the application which was filed along with plaint.
4. The defendant states that he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the present suit as he is not a tenant in his indivisual capacity. According to the defendant, the plaintiff herself is relying upon the agreement dated 14.02.2009 which indicates M/s Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. is the tenant qua the suit property and even tenancy has not been terminated by the plaintiff by issuing a valid legal notice upon the tenant. Therefore, the suit as well as the present application is not maintainable. It is argued that it is M/s Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. which undertook to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the plaintiff at the time of taking the suit premises on rent and subsequently issued cheques as per the understanding between the parties. The defendant is one of the directors of M/s Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. and at the time of entering into the lease agreement dated 14.02.2009, the defendant had signed the said agreement for M/s Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. who is CS (OS) 86/2010 Page 3 of 8 having its independent existence being legal entity, therefore, the suit is not maintainable against the defendant in his individual capacity.
5. This Court has perused the pleadings in the matter as well as the documents filed by the plaintiff. It appears from the lease agreement filed by the plaintiff that it was signed by the defendant and in handwriting the name of company was just mentioned, all the cuttings, were only initialed by the defendant. The alleged lease deed also contained the stamp of company M/s. Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff has placed on record the letter dated 03.06.2009 written by Mr. Rajesh Sharma in his own handwriting to the plaintiff on plain paper where he undertook to vacate the premises by 31.07.2009. Thereafter two more similar undertakings were filed by the defendant on plain paper in his individual capacity on 21.06.2009 as well as 28.08.2009.
6. The plaintiff has also placed the certified copy of the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the defendant i.e. Rajesh Sharma against the plaintiff in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts being CS (OS) No.826/2009. In the said suit the plaintiff sought the following reliefs against the defendant:- CS (OS) 86/2010 Page 4 of 8
(a) To pass an order for permanent injunction in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs and against the defendants, their agents, servants, attorneys associates etc. there by restraining the defendant from illegal activities of dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property, and not to interfere in the peaceful living of the plaintiff and his family from the suit property and to settle the matter in accordance with due process of law instead of threatening for life and property of the defendant.
(b) It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be passed a mandatory injunction against the defendants, their agents servants, attorneys associates etc. directing them to provide the requisite documents of Pan number of the defendant and the registered lease/rent agreement to enable him to settle his accounts and pay the rent accordingly and to abide by the terms and conditions of the said leaee agreement in the interest of justice."
7. It is pertinent to mention that the said suit was filed by the defendant in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the company. In the said suit, the defendant has admitted that he is residing in the rented accommodation which is the subject matter of the property. The admission was made by the defendant that the plaintiff is the owner of the said property and the said premises were rented out to him on 11th of February, 2009 at the rate of Rs.1,75,000/- per month for the purposes of residence. He also admitted that he had paid Rs. 7 CS (OS) 86/2010 Page 5 of 8 lac through bank draft to the plaintiff as rent for the current month and two months advance and remaining amount was sent for further period. But even after his several requests, the plaintiff herein did not provide him the copy of agreement to enable him to make payment of future rent after due deduction of TDS and on the one or the other pretext kept avoiding the same. It was also stated in his plaint that the defendant herein had felt so harassed and tortured that he virtually went under depression and could not even pay proper attention towards his business, therefore, the suit was filed by him against the plaintiff.
8. The defendant has not placed any material on record to show that there was any business carried out by M/s. Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. at their premises. There is not a single document on record to show that there was any admission on the part of the plaintiff that the premises was let out to his company and not to him. Rather, in the suit filed by him against the plaintiff there is an admission made by him to the effect that the premises in question was let out to him for residential purpose. Three undertakings given by him on plain papers, in his individual capacity show that the premises was used by him CS (OS) 86/2010 Page 6 of 8 only. It is also not the case of the defendant that any third party interest is involved in the tenanted premises. He was not served with the legal notice dated 31.10.2009 requesting him to vacate the suit property but the same was not replied by him despite of three undertakings dated 03.06.2009, 21.06.2009 and 28.08.2009 and legal notice the premises in question was not vacated nor he had paid the admitted rent or by the company allegedly owned by him. The plaintiff says that even if the document is treated as rent note, how can the defendant absolve himself from paying the rent and at the same time enjoy the premises in question. Once a tenant has come into possession of the premises by virtue of the rent agreement, the rent agreement cannot be denied by the parties.
9. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the prayer made in the application is bona fide, the defendant cannot be allowed to occupy the premises by paying any rent to the plaintiff. He is raising false and frivolous pleas on one pretext or the other. The plea raised by him is just an afterthought and which would be considered only at the later stage. As he has made admission in his case and there is no contrary evidence produced by him as raised in the present suit. CS (OS) 86/2010 Page 7 of 8 Therefore, the present application is allowed with the following directions:-
(a) The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff the admitted arrears of rent of Rs. 12,25,000/- for the period from June, 2009 to December, 2009 within the period of four weeks from today.
(b) He shall also pay the rent for the subsequent period to the plaintiff within twelve weeks from the date of passing the order.
(c) He is also directed to continue to pay the admitted rent to the plaintiff for every month till the time he is occupying the premises in question.
10. As far as the occupation charges @ Rs.30,000/- per day by the defendant is concerned, the said claim of the plaitniff would be decided later on.
11. The present application is disposed of with these directions.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J JULY 04, 2011 mm CS (OS) 86/2010 Page 8 of 8