Delhi High Court
M/S. Mirkana Engineering Pvt. ... vs Mr Eino S Mehta & Anr. on 8 September, 2014
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: September 08, 2014
+ FAO(OS) 164/2014
M/S MIRKANA ENGINEERING PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.A.K.Chabra, Advocate
versus
MR EINO S MEHTA & ANR ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.B.B.Gupta, Advocate with
Mr.Sarthak Ghonkrokta,
Advocate
FAO(OS) 165/2014
M/S MIRKANA ENGINEERING PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.A.K.Chabra, Advocate
versus
MRS KANTA MEHTA & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.B.B.Gupta, Advocate with
Mr.Sarthak Ghonkrokta,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. IA No.10338/2012 filed in CS(OS)No.37/2009 and an identically
worded interim application No.10336/2012 in CS(OS)No.38/2009 filed by
respondent No.1 - the plaintiff(s), have been allowed by the learned Single
Judge and the reasoned order is dated October 31, 2013 which is challenged
in FAO(OS)No.165/2014. A short order of even date has been challenged in
FAO(OS)No.164/2014.
2. The first respondent in the two appeals : Ms.Kanta Mehta and Eino
S.Mehta are not only related to each other but also own separate portions in
the same building at Rama Road, Najafgarh Industrial Area, New Delhi
which they let out to the appellant. Issue of the appellant sub-letting the
same to the second respondent was sorted out as per a compromise under
which it was agreed that both could occupy the premises let out and thus
both would be jointly and severally liable to pay the rent.
3. Alleging that the period of lease was over, since there were two
independent leases, the first respondent in the two appeals sued for
ejectment and mesne profits.
4. By and under the two interim applications, one each filed in the two
suits, prayer made was that the defendants in the suit i.e. the appellant and
the second respondent in both appeals be directed to pay at least the agreed
rent.
5. The appellant took the plea in both the suits that for the period May
01, 2007 to August 30, 2008 it was not liable to pay any rent on account of
the premises being sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and hence
not usable.
6. The reasoned decision by the learned Single Judge notes Clauses 'c'
and 'd' of the lease-deed. The learned Single Judge has held that under the
two clauses the liability to pay rent is without demur and without any
condition. Learned Single Judge has also referred to Clause 2 of the lease-
deed as per which the lessee was not entitled to suspend the payment of rent
for whatever reason. The learned Single Judge has thus held that
notwithstanding the property being sealed for the duration afore-noted,
pending determination of damages, agreed rent has to be paid.
7. Now, concededly there is no statutory right nor has a right been
created under the agreement(s) for the tenant to suspend the rent.
8. As held in the decision reported as AIR 1985 Delhi 106 M/s.Apparel
Trends, New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Krishna Dandona & Ors., AIR 1961
Madras 28 B.Ahmed Maracair Vs. Muthuvalliappa Chettiar and (2004) 4
SCC 766 Raichurmatham Prabhakar & Anr. Vs. Rawatmal Dugar the
principles governing 'suspension of rent' are based on justice, equity and
good conscience. Thus, it would depend on the facts of each case whether a
tenant is entitled to the suspension of rent. In other words, equity in favour
of the tenant would entitle the payment of rent to be suspended.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the appellants in the two suits.
The two written statements filed by the appellant, which are identically
worded, simply say that the appellant is not liable to pay rent for the period
during which the premises remained sealed.
10. Mere fact of a property being sealed would not create an equity in
favour of the appellant. Such facts wherefrom equity would ooze have to be
pleaded.
11. What if a tenant starts misusing a property inviting action by the
municipal authority to seal the same? Surely, such a tenant would not be
entitled to suspension of rent.
12. Notwithstanding the appellant not pleading any fact concerning what
led the municipal authorities to seal the premises for the duration in
question, we have looked into the reason.
13. On a misreading of the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 concerning sub-
division of plots and overlooking the fact that the first respondent(s) had a
duly sanctioned municipal plan, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi sealed
the building in question as also a few more on Rama Road. The owners
went to Court. The judicial verdict ultimately was in favour of the owners
of the properties which included the property leased to the appellant.
WP(C)No.3193/2007 filed by the first respondents succeeded.
14. The property was de-sealed.
15. Thus, no illegality or wrong was committed by the first respondent in
both the appeals which led to the building being sealed. It may be true that
even the appellant was not at fault. But, there would be no equity in favour
of the appellant vis-a-vis the first respondent in the two appeals.
16. Any loss suffered by the appellant due to wrong action taken by the
municipal authorities has to be remedied by the appellant in proceedings
against the municipal authorities.
17. It is in this context that Clause 2 of the two lease-deeds which are
identically worded assumes importance. As per the said clause noted by the
learned Single Judge the liability to pay rent is unconditional and without
demur.
18. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to
costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014
rk
