Mrs. Ranjit Kaur vs Gobind Impex Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1380 Del

ORDER

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Mrs. Ranjit Kaur, hereinafter described as the plaintiff has filed the suit for ejectment, damages, mesne profits/arrears of rent and pendent lite interest against the defendants. The relevant facts are that in January 1991 Mohan Magotra, Director of defendants 1 to 3 companies misled the plaintiff. She was made to agree to let out certain portions of property bearing no. B-68 Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi on terms and conditions which were totally favorable to defendants 1 to 3 on rent. It was totally unrealistic and insignificant rent as per the prevalent rents. Mohan Magotra misled the plaintiff and made her execute three separate lease deeds dated 16.1.1991 by virtue of which separate portions were let to defendants 1 to 3. They were only two to pay Rs.1500/-, Rs.3000/- and Rs.3000/- per month for each lease agreement. It was agreed that lease shall commence on 16.1.1991 and shall subject terms there of continue for a term of 5 years with an option to the tenants to renew the lease for a further three extensions of 5 years.

2. It is further alleged that in furtherance of his evil designs the defendants also managed to reserve the right to sub-let the whole or any part of the suit premises. Acting on basis of the said power to sublet the premises defendants 1 to 3 by virtue of lease deed dated 31st May, 1991 agreed to let out the entire suit premises to defendant no.4 (M/s ANZ Grindlays Bank) on terms and conditions and for rent as contained therein. Though defendants 1 to 3 were paying a paltry amount of Rs.7500/- per month they let the premises to the said bank, defendant no.4,at a monthly rent of Rs.2,50,000/-. Apart from above, defendants 1 to 3 were also entitled to hire charges towards fixture and furnitures. The rent so arrived at between defendants 1 to 3 and defendant no.4 has been mentioned separately for each portion. The plaintiff was further misled into executing an addendum dated 20.11.1991. As per addendum executed between defendant 1 and plaintiff it was agreed by defendant 1 that it would pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- from the date of the execution of the lease deed instead of Rs.1500/-as originally provided and it further provided that lease deed dated 31.5.1991 shall be co-terminus with lease deed dated 16.1.1991.

3. Plaintiff's case is that initial lease was for five years subject to renewal of five years provided one months' notice is given. No notice was issued by defendants and no new lease deed was executed. It is claimed that in the absence of any renewal the tenancy with the afflux of time on the expiry of the initial period of five years became a month to month tenancy and came to an end by afflux of time on 31.5.2000. The plaintiffs claim that they are liable to get the possession and also mesne profits @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per month.

4. IA 11391/2000 has been filed by plaintiff to restrain defendant no.1 from making any payment to defendants 1 to 3 for use and occupation of the suit premises and further directing defendants 1 to 4 to jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- per month for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises. In this regard it has been asserted that in pursuance to the termination of the tenancy defendants 1 to 4 are in illegal and unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises and are liable to pay to the plaintiff mesne profits at Rs.750,000/- per month which is the prevailing market rent. As a result of illegal and unlawful acts of defendant no.1 grave loss and injury has been caused to the plaintiff.

5. On 2nd February, 2001 this court had directed defendant no.4 will not make payment of further rent of the suit premises to defendants 1 to 3.

6. An application has been filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, IA 1172/2001 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for recalling of the said order. It has been pleaded that the lease deed has not expired and plaintiff's argument in that regard is incorrect. Under the lease deed dated 16.1.1991 the lease was given for a period of five years with an option of the defendants to renew it for a further period of five years. The defendants 1 to 3 had already exercised the said option. Furthermore it is pleaded that there are three different addendums dated 20.11.1991. They were executed and registered by the plaintiff and it was agreed that lease would continue till defendant no.4 continues to occupy the premises as sub-tenant.

7. By virtue of the present order the above said interim application can conveniently be disposed.

8. During the course of submissions it had been appointed that there were three lease agreements separately executed between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and therefore, one single suit in this regard could not be filed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff very vehemently had drawn the attention of the court to Order 1 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, at this stage no opinion is being expressed on this controversy. This is for the reason that while arguments were being heard and orders were reserved the plaintiff has preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendment of the plaint in this regard. The notice had been accepted by the counsel for defendants 1 to 3 in court and during the course of the submissions while the application was still pending conceded at the Bar that keeping in view this application his plea that suit is not maintainable because of different causes of action and three lease agreements and three premises need not be adjudicated for purpose of the present order. In that view of the matter no further opinion is expressed in that regard.

9. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been alleged that the Director of defendant no.1 has misled the plaintiff and got executed these lease agreements with insignificant rent to be paid. It has further been alleged that the subsequent addendums were got executed by misleading the plaintiff. This is a question which indeed has to be gone into. For purposes of the present order while formulating a prima facie view suffice to state that the lease agreements have been executed on 16.1.1991 for nearly 10 years the plaintiff did not raise little finger and protest in this regard. For the interim application under consideration therefore suffice to state that it is too late in the day to urge that she had been misled. If there was any such fact it could have been raised for consideration at an earlier period.

10. It has however been pointed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that while the total rent paid to the plaintiffs is insignificant for three agreements executed separately for different portions of the premises taking advantage of the clause that they can sub let, defendants 1 to 3 sublet the premises to defendant no.4 at an exorbitant rent of Rs.2,50,000/- per month. It was further urged that the lease of the defendants had been terminated and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits at the market rent.

11. The addendum dated 20.11.1991 in fact has another version to state. The plaintiff is a party to this addendum. It provides that lessee along with two other companies, namely, M/s Healthy Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Goodfaith Pvt. Ltd., have extended the basement in front and the space shall be used by the companies. Further, it was provided that the lessee shall be entitled to continue as the lessee at its option only as long as ANZ Grindlays Bank or its legal successors remain in possession of the propertyas sub-tenant. This lease shall be co-terminus with the tenancy of ANZ Grindlays Bank or its lawful successors. Similar addendum had been executed with respect to the other agreements similarly providing that lessee shall be entitled to continue as lessee at its option only so long as ANZ Grindlays Bank or its legal successor remain in possession of the property as sub-tenant. It further provides that this lease shall be co-terminus with the tenancy of ANZ Grindlays Bank or its lawful successor.

12. This particular aspect of the same clearly shows that the lease was to continue so long as ANZ Grindlays Bank continue to be a tenant in the property. Since the said bank defendant no.4 is still a tenant in the property indeed the plaintiff's plea that the lease agreement in the absence of the necessary option within stipulated time must be deemed to have come to an end must fall. For purposes of the said order the said plea necessarily has to be rejected.

13. In that view of the matter it will not be appropriate to restrict and restrain defendant no.4 from making the payment of rent to defendants 1 to 3. As a necessary consequence the IA of the plaintiff must fail as at present is dismissed. the ad interim order passed by this court referred to above would stand vacated.

Suit No.2438/2000

14. Written statement by defendants 1 to 3 be filed within four weeks with advance copy to the plaintiff. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks.

15. List it on 19th January, 2002 for framing of issues.