Delhi High Court
M/S Silver Grand Services & Ors vs Rajesh Kumar Nagpal & Ors on 13 November, 2013
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.11.2013
+ FAO(OS) No. 511/2013
M/S SILVER GRAND SERVICES & ORS ..... Appellants
versus
RAJESH KUMAR NAGPAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Madan Gera
For the Respondent : Mr Rajshekhar Rao and Mr Harshvardhan Reddy
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CAV 1005/2013
The learned counsel for the respondent / caveator is present.
The caveat stands discharged.
CM No. 17884/2013
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) No. 511/2013 & CM No. 17883/2013
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.09.2013 passed
by a learned Single Judge of this court in I.A No. 16249/2012. By that
application, the appellant / defendant had sought suspension of the rent
for the period December, 2011 to 19.11.2012 when the premises were
vacated and handed over to the respondent / plaintiff. The said
application was moved in CS(OS) No. 2400/2011 which had been filed
by the respondent / plaintiff seeking recovery of possession as also mesne
profits and damages.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant in the opening arguments
stated that the rent for the above mentioned period ought to be suspended
because the respondent / plaintiff had not cooperated with the appellant
by not supplying the Building Structure Stability Certificate, the
sanctioned plan and the completion certificate as a result of which the
appellant was unable to obtain the Health Trade License which was
necessary for the purposes of running a banquet hall. In order to support
his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to
page 123 which is allegedly a typed copy of a letter dated 15.03.2011
issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Health Department (West
Zone) wherein it is indicated that a number of documents are required and
two of them being shown at serial Nos. 5 & 6 are as under:-
"5. Building Structure stability certificate.
6.Sanctioned plan and completion certificate."
3. The sum ad substance of the argument of the learned counsel for
the appellant was that the banquet hall could not be run because the
requisite permissions had not been obtained and in terms of the consent
order dated 24.11.2011, the banquet hall could only be run after the
appellant had obtained all the requisite statutory permissions. It was
contended that the statutory permissions could not be obtained because of
the obstructive attitude of the respondent / plaintiff and, in particular,
conduct of the said respondent / plaintiff in not supplying the Building
Structure Stability Certificate and/ or the sanction plan as also the
completion certificate.
4. When we asked the learned counsel for the respondent to respond
to these submissions, he handed over to us a photocopy of the document
dated 15.03.2011 which was issued by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, Health Department (West Zone). The photocopy which is marked
as 'X' is taken on record. The scanned image of the said letter is as
under:-
5. It is apparent that serial Nos. 5 & 6 have not been ticked in the said
letter as a result the entire foundation and basis of the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant has been knocked aside.
6. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with cost of
Rs 25.000/-.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
NOVEMBER 13, 2013
SU
