Tea Trade Tech. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Corporate Services & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5487 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: 27th November, 2013.

+                                  RFA 302/2009

       TEA TRADE TECH. PVT. LTD. & ANR.         ..... Appellants
                   Through: Mr. Bharat Ahuja, Advocate.

                                   Versus

    CORPORATE SERVICES & ANR.                 ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Atul Batra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2009

of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), South-II, Patiala House

Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.247/2008 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, to

the extent the same denies to the two appellants/plaintiffs the arrears of rent

and consultancy charges.

2. Notice of the appeal was ordered to the issued and the three

respondents/defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. Vide judgment

dated 15th November, 2011, the appeal was allowed and a decree was passed

in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and against the three

respondents/defendants for recovery of Rs.25,000/- per month from 1st

October, 2007 to 30th June, 2009. However, on applications being filed by

the respondents/defendants, the said decree was set aside vide order dated

25th September, 2013 and the appeal posted for today for hearing. It may be

noted that in the interregnum the appellant/plaintiff No.2 had died and vide

the same order dated 25th September, 2013, his legal heirs were also

substituted.

3. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

4. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has argued, (i) that the

respondent/defendant No.1, of which the respondents/defendants No.2 & 3

were/are partners, was a tenant under the appellants/plaintiffs in property

No.M-2-I, Kaushalya Park, Surya Mansion, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, though

under documents titled License Deed and a Consultancy Agreement, for an

aggregate amount of Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from the year 2005;

(ii) that the tenanted premises were sealed by the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi (MCD) on 4th April, 2006; (iii) however, upon the

respondents/defendants filing an affidavit to the effect that they will not

misuse the property, the premises were de-sealed; (iv) that the

respondents/defendants continued to use the premises till October, 2007

when the same were again sealed, for the reason of the respondents /

defendants having not stopped the misuse; (v) that the

respondents/defendants stopped paying any amounts to the

appellants/plaintiffs from 1st October, 2007 and also did not offer or deliver

back possession of the premises; (vi) that the appellants/plaintiffs

accordingly in September, 2008 terminated the tenancy of the

respondents/defendants and instituted the suit from which this appeal arises,

for recovery of possession of the premises and for mesne profits/damages

for use and occupation; (vii) that vide the impugned judgment and decree

dated 30th April, 2009, though a decree for recovery of possession of the

premises was passed in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs but no relief of

recovery of any amount due since 1st October, 2007, was granted; (viii) that

the respondents/defendants on 26th June, 2009 delivered possession of the

premises to the appellants/plaintiffs after having the same de-sealed and

removing their goods therefrom. The appellants/plaintiffs thus claim arrears

of mesne profits from 1st October, 2007 to 30th June, 2009.

5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents/defendants has invited

attention to the Settlement dated 26th/30th June, 2009 signed between the

parties at the time of delivery of possession of the premises by the

respondents/defendants to the appellants/plaintiffs and the last clause

whereof is as under:

"All dues in regards to the premises have been cleared up to date in accordance to the above order, the order given by the court has been adhered to and there are no further dues or claims in respect to the said property."

6. He thus contends that in view thereof, nothing is due to the

appellants/plaintiffs.

7. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs does not controvert the

execution of the document aforesaid. His contention however is that the

appellants/plaintiffs had given the certificate aforesaid of no dues/no claims

only with reference to the order/judgment/decree dated 30th April, 2009 of

the Court, under which no money had been awarded to the

appellants/plaintiffs and by the aforesaid certificate did not give up their

rights to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree and this appeal

was filed on 3rd August, 2009.

8. The aforesaid contention is untenable.

9. If the purport of the parties at the time of execution of the document

aforesaid, was only to deliver possession in compliance of the decree, there

would have been no occasion for the parties to mention about the dues in

regard to the property. The reference in the said document/Settlement to the

order/judgment/decree which had dismissed the monetary claim of the

appellants/plaintiffs, can also be construed, as parties meaning/stating that

the appellants/plaintiffs were not entitled to any amounts from the

respondents/defendants. Moreover, besides stating so, the parties further

expressly stated that there are no further dues or claim with respect to the

property.

10. The appellants/plaintiffs having so agreed, are deemed to have given

up their claim even if any against the respondents/defendants with respect to

the property and cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same.

11. There is thus no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed; however in

the circumstances, no order as to costs.

Decree sheet be drawn up.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

NOVEMBER 27, 2013 bs