Delhi High Court
Sona Koyo Steering Systems ... vs Shonkh Technologies Int'L ... on 27 September, 2004
Author: R Jain
Bench: R Jain
JUDGMENT
R.C. Jain, J.
1. This is an application under Order 39 Rule 1, 2, 7 and 10 read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff praying for a direction on the defendant to pay to the plaintiff arrears of ''user charges'' at the admitted rate in respect of the suit premises and continue to pay the same month by month till the final disposal of the suit and also for an ad interm injunction for restraining the defendant, its directors, executives and officers from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit premises.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, interest etc. with the averments and allegations that it is the owner of six flats bearing Nos. 1205, 1205A, 1206, 1207, 1208 and 1208A at Inderprakash Building, New Delhi fully detailed in the site plan, which were leased out to the defendant vide a registered lease deed dated 16.5.2002 at an aggregate monthly rent of Rs. 1,09,410/-. The defendant company paid rent at the contractual rate up to the month of July 2002 which was even short by Rs. 59,300/-. The plaintiff served the defendant company with a quit notice dated 16.9.2002 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises on the determination of their lease. The defendant having not handed over the possession, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2002 till 31.1.2002 @Rs. 1,09,410/- and for recovery of damages for use and occupation w.e.f. 1.2.2003 onwards. The defendant is contesting the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the plaintiff and its sister concern M/s Krishna Enterprises had approached the defendant to let out their premises and represented that they were in possession of five parking spaces, two adjacent to the entrance of the building and three opposite the entrance, and on that understanding the defendant had agreed to take the premises on lease vide a composite tenancy. However, the plaintiff made available only two parking spaces and failed to hand over the possession of the remaining three parking spaces and, therefore, the rent of the tenancy stood reduced to half in terms of the lease deed. It was also contended that it was further reduced to less than half as the defendant has paid a heavy amount towards the security deposit and towards the rent for initial months.
3. The application is opposed on behalf of the defendant on the same pleas on which the suit is sought to be defended and it is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to any order or direction on the defendant as sought for by him.
4. I have heard Mr. B.B. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant and Mr. Madan Gera, learned counsel for the defendant and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. In the case in hand the execution of the lease deed dated 16.5.2002 is not denied by the defendant, therefore, its terms can safely be relied upon so as to examine the plea of the defendant in regard to the number of parking spaces which the plaintiff had agreed to hand over to the defendant besides the lpased premises. Clause 1(a) of the lease deed gives out the extent of the leased premises as 2605 sq.ft. (super area) morefully detailed and described in Schedule-I together with furniture, fixtures, fittings, electrical installations, computer networking and appliances as mentioned in Schedule II and two number of car parking spaces (left side of the main entrance to the lift lobby). It is, therefore, manifest that by this lease deed the plaintiff was required to provide only two car parking spaces to the defendant, which admittedly have been provided to the defendant. Though the lease deed referred to two open car parking spaces, but it is admitted that pursuant to some objections raised by the Delhi Fire Service Department, instead of open car spaces, the plaintiff has provided two covered car spaces to the defendant in the basement area.
5. Mr. Gera, learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently urged that the plaintiff had undertaken to provide five car spaces in respect of the leased premises in the suit and certain other premises which were also leased by the plaintiff to the defendant and, therefore, the two tenancy should be considered as joint tenancies. This Court is not persuaded to accept this contention because by no stretch the lease deed dated 16.5.2002 can be said to be a combined lease of the properties mentioned in the ease deed with any other properties which might have been leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant. This lease agreement is confined only to the area mentioned therein and refers to only two car parking spaces and, therefore, the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff had at any point of time represented to provide five car spaces cannot be accepted, at least, on a prima facie view of the matter. Assuming for the sake of argument that the plaintiff had represented to the defendant to provide five car spaces in respect of this tenancy and some other tenancy and they failed to provide the same, it would not entitle the defendant to reduce the rent to half or less than half only on that ground.
6. In the case in hand it is not disputed by the defendant that they have paid rent to the plaintiff only uptill the month of July, 2002 and that they are continuing in possession of the suit premises till date. The contractual rate of rent is also not disputed and, therefore, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that an order of payment of arrears of rent and current and future rent/damages for use and occupation is imminently warranted in this case. The application is accordingly allowed and the defendant is hereby called upon to pay to the plaintiff arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2002 till 31.1.2003 @Rs. 1,09,410/- per month and pay arrears of damages at the same rate w.e.f. 1.2.2003 till 31.8.2004 within a period of four weeks and continue to pay the use and occupation charges at the same rate month by month by 10th of each calender month. This payment will be without prejudice to the pleas and contentions of the parties and subject to adjustment of the amount towards damages/mesne profits which the defendant might be called upon to pay on the final disposal of the suit.
7. Observations made herein above will not tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of this case.
