Delhi High Court
Vaksons Apa Optics Pvt. Ltd. vs R.G.Engineers & Consultants & ... on 22 October, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.186/2002
Date of decision: 22nd October, 2008
%
VAKSONS APA OPTICS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Satyender, Adv.
versus
R.G.ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS & ANR ... Respondents
Through : Mr. M.N. Dutt, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
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 the Digest?
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. A short issue arises for consideration.
3. Vide two agreements, Ex.PW.2/2 and Ex.PW.2/3 both
dated 16th August, 1995, R.G. Engineers & Consultants, a
partnership firm through its partner Ram Lal Aggarwal, as
owner/landlord of property bearing No.50, Rajasthani, Udyog
Nagar, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi gave possession thereof to the
appellant recording that Rs.7,500/- per month was to be paid
as rent and Rs.7,500 was payable as consultancy fee, and
that duration of the agreements was two years.
4. It has transpired at the trial that so called consultancy
fee was a device created by the party to cheat the revenue
and that in fact the monthly rent was Rs.15,000/-.
5. The agreements recorded a covenant that on expiry of
the two years period, at the option of the appellant the
arrangement would continue for a period of further two years
with consultancy fee to be increased by 25%.
6. Vide Ex.DW.2/R1, on 28.12.1996, the tenant wrote as
under: -
"To,
M/s R.G. Engineers & Consultants
50, Rajasthani Udyog Nagar,
G.T. Karnal Road,
Delhi-110033
SUB : Renewal/Extension of Agreement.
Dear Sir,
That as per Clause „T‟ of the Agreement of
commission dated 16.08.1995, we are hereby
exercising the option for extending the
agreement of commission for next two years
w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 with increase in commission
by 25% as per the aforesaid clause. We are
intimating you in time as per the clause.
This is for your kind information.
Thanking you
for VAKSONS APA OPTICS PVT. LTD.
(Dr. K.B. Jain)
DIRECTOR"
7. The landlord did not accept the extension of the lease
and after issuing a notice dated 18th February, 1997 „Mark B‟
proceeded to determine the lease requiring possession to be
handed over, possession not being handed over, a suit was
filed for ejectment and mesne profits.
8. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8 th February,
2002 ejectment of the appellant has been directed and
mesne profits awarded to the landlord are the agreed rent of
Rs.15,000/- per month.
9. Adjustment of the security deposit in sum of
Rs.1,75,000/- by the tenant to the landlord has given benefit
of to the tenant.
10. The question which arose before learned Trial Judge was
whether Ex.PW.2/2 and Ex.PW.2/3 could be relied upon by the
parties.
11. Needless to state the basis of the said dispute was that
the said two documents created a lease for a period of two
years and as per law no lease pertaining to immovable
property can be created except by a document in writing and
registered.
12. The learned Trial Judge has noted that pertaining to a
document requiring registration irrespective of it being not
registered, where both parties rely upon the same, it can be
looked into by the court as an admitted document.
13. Learned Trial Judge has looked into the contents of
Ex.PW.2/2 and Ex.PW.2/3 for the reason the appellants
themselves took a defence under the two documents. It was
pleaded, the appellant had exercised the right to have the
lease extending by a period of two years.
14. Needless to state that the documents on which the
appellant relied upon was Ex.DW.2/R1 being the letter dated
28.12.1996.
15. We need to decide whether a fresh lease should or
should not have been executed pursuant to Ex.DW.2/R1 for
the reason, if such, a lease was executed, it would have
created a further right in favour of the appellant to occupy the
subject property for a further period of two years.
16. Initial lease period was from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1997.
The extending period would have been from 01.04.1997
ending on 31.03.1999.
17. In any case the appellant cannot occupy the premises
beyond 31.03.1999.
18. For purposes of issue of mesne profits, whether
occupation is authorized or not, is irrelevant for the reason
that so called mesne profits awarded by the learned Trial
Judge are nothing but the agreed rent, i.e., Rs.15,000/- per
month.
19. It is unfortunate that the matter has continued to linger
on in this Court without a realization that under no
circumstances could the appellant continue to occupy the
said premises beyond 31.03.1999.
20. We dismiss the appeal with cost.
21. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant states
that some time may be granted to the appellant to vacate the
tenanted premises.
22. We grant appellant 6 months time to vacate the
tenanted premises subject to the condition that appellant
shall continue to pay use and occupation charges to the
landlord each month at the rate specified in the impugned
judgment and decree.
23. Further, all charges for water and electricity etc. as per
actual consumption shall be borne by the appellant.
24. We further direct the Director/Authorized Representative
of the appellant to file an affidavit by way of an undertaking
in this Court within 2 weeks from today; the undertaking
would be on the terms above.
25. At this stage, we note that the respondents have filed
cross objections which are available at page 121 to 124 of the
appellant‟s paper book. Unfortunately, till date the cross
objections were not pressed and hence even notice of the
cross objections has not been issued to the appellant.
26. The cross objections have even not been numbered by
the Registry.
27. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent
does not press the cross objections. The same are
accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
OCTOBER 22, 2008
mk
