Delhi High Court
Mr. Hardeep Kumar vs Kevin Industries Ltd. on 15 November, 2002
Author: S Mukerjee
Bench: S Mukerjee
JUDGMENT
S. Mukerjee, J.
I.A. No. 6105/2001
1. This is an application under Order 39 Rule 10
CPC, whereby prayer is made for directing the defendant
to deposit use and occupation charges at Rs. 1,25,000/-
per month, subject to the final adjudication of mesne
profits and damages by this Court.
2. The case of the plaintiff/applicant, is that the
last monthly rent paid was Rs. 1 lakh commencing from
1.10.87 under a registered lease deed. As per the terms
of the said registered lease deed, beyond the initial
period of three years, the lease was further renewable
with an increase of 25%, for a further period of two
years after the expiry of the initial three years period.
3. The contention of the defendant on the other
hand, is that even from the last agreed rent of Rs. 1
lakh, there had been an alleged agreement to reduce the
rental by 30%, and also ti was allegedly agreed that
there would not be any further increase of rental at all.
The defendant has been as such tendering only Rs.
70,000/- per month.
4. While the general practice of this Court is to
direct the payment/deposit of the last paid rent, under
Order 39 Rule 10 CPC, yet the special/peculiar facts of
each case have to be kept in mind.
5. At the same time, the existence of a registered
lease deed between the parties which stipulates therein
the increase payable after the first and initial three
year period, is also a factor which ought not to be taken
lightly.
6. I also find that in the contemporaneous
correspondence exchanged between the parties, and in
particular in the reply, to the legal notice sent by the
Advocates on behalf of the defendants, there is no
serious dispute regarding the aspect that it had been
agreed that the rent will stand enhanced to
Rs. 01,25,000/- per month. The only objection/defense
taken in the reply was that for certain reasons pleaded
by the defendant, according to them, the increase as
agreed, should be not enforced.
7. Considering the matter in the in the total conspectus
and at the stage of prima-facie consideration, as
contemplated by Order 39 Rule 10 CPC, I consider the
following directions will subserve the interests of
Justice and meet the requirements of the said statutory
provisions:-
(i) Upon the plaintiff filing within a week
affidavit of undertaking for restitution with
such interest as may be awarded in the event
of final decision going against the plaintiff
the defendant will pay to the plaintiff
directly the arrears of use and occupation
charges at Rs. 1 lakh per month w.e.f.
1.10.2000 less the amount already paid if
any. This amount will be paid within 6 weeks
subject to the payment of minimum Rs. 4 lakhs
per week as first Installment starting with
the week commencing from 15.11.2002, provided
however that that in case the defendant pays
50% of the amount payable within the said
first week itself, thereupon the total
period, shall stand extended to three months;
(ii) As regards the period from the current month
onwards, the defendant is directed to deposit
Rs. 1,25,000/- per month since that was the
agreed amount as per the registered lease
deed, and the same can appropriately be made
applicable atleast prospectively more so
since the period of additional two years, is
also over, and even according to the signed
and registered document, the monthly amount
payable would have otherwise become Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, as on date. As such,
even by directing Rs. 1,25,000/- to be paid,
month by month, during the period November
2002 onwards, by the 15th of every month
starting from 15.11.2002, the amount so
directed to be paid, would be still less than
the amount falling due/payable as per the
registered lease deed.
8. It may be mentioned that the stand of the
defendant in their two page reply filed to IA No. 6105/01,
is rather wishy-washy and does not inspire much
confidence, atleast at the present stage of proceedings.
9. Needless to say, all amounts paid pursuant to the
present orders, shall be subject to the adjustment by way of
further orders/final disposal as the case may be.
10. In the event of the defendant failing to comply
with these orders/direction, its defense shall be liable
to be struck of on that ground, and further appropriate
orders/directions are then liable to be passed against
the defendant said basis.
11. The application stands disposed of with the above
directions but with no order as to costs.
