Madhu Sehgal vs Shri Rajesh Sharma
2011 Latest Caselaw 3097 Del

          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

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

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

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:-

(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

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

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.

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