Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar Sood vs M/S Sizzler Restaurant Pvt Ltd on 24 February, 2015
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on :19.02.2015
Judgment delivered on :24.02.2014
+ CS(OS) 874/2013
SATISH KUMAR SOOD
..... Plaintiff
Through Ms. Vidhi Goel and Ms. Bhumika
Menon, Advs.
versus
M/S SIZZLER RESTAURANT PVT LTD
..... Defendant
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The present suit is a suit for possession, mesne profit and
damages.
2 The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Eros Cinema-cum-
Commercial Complex. Defendant had approached the plaintiff to take
on lease a space for an ice-cream parlour in the aforenoted complex.
Lease deed dated 20.4.2012 had been entered into by the parties. It was
for a space of 434 sq. feet super area on the ground floor of Eros Cinema
Building, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. Lease commenced on
28.3.2012, it was a monthly lease for an initial period of three years
renewable at the option of defendant for further period of three years for
a maximum of 9 years. Rent payable was Rs.56,420/- per month for the
super area of 434 sq. ft. This monthly rent was payable in advance by
the 7th day of each calendar month. Lease deed also provided that the
defendant would pay an interest free refundable security deposit of
Rs.2,25,680/- equivalent to 4 months rent. This security amount was
deposited by the defendant. The lease deed was not registered. Present
suit as noted supra was filed with a prayer for recovery of possession of
the suit property as arrears of rent had not been paid by the defendant.
3 Written statement was not filed.
4 On the application of the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 of the
CPC the Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
possession. A decree of ejectment was accordingly passed in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant qua the suit property. Decree
sheet was prepared on 25.4.2014. The suit property was finally handed
back to the plaintiff on 07.6.2014.
5 The other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff related to the rights of
the plaintiff to claim mesne profits and damages.
6 Matter was listed for ex parte final arguments.
7 Ex parte evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A) has been filed
by Vikas Saxena on behalf of the plaintiff, reiterating the averments
made in the plaint. The deponent also averred that the parties had
entered into a maintenance agreement which was co-existent and co-
terminus with the lease agreement. The plaintiff was to provide the
maintenance and operation of various common services, facilities and
equipment in the common areas in the said complex and in
consideration of which the defendant was to pay the maintenance
charges which were initially fixed at Rs.20/- per sq. ft. per month on an
aggregate super area of 434 sq. ft. w.e.f. Rs.8680/- per month. The
maintenance charges were subject to increase and were payable from
14.5.2012. Claim for mesne profits and damages has been made.
Admittedly, the suit property had been handed back to the plaintiff on
07.6.2014. This was after the decree of ejectment was passed on
25.4.2014. It is stated that arrears of rent w.e.f. November, 2012 up to
January, 2013 i.e. for three months have not been paid. The admitted
rent is Rs.56,420/- per month. Damages/mesne profits w.e.f. 01.2.2013
up to 07.6.2014 (i.e. for 16 months) have also been claimed.
8 Admittedly, the document i.e. the lease deed dated 20.4.2012
between the parties is not a registered document. A document such as a
lease deed which is required to be compulsorily registered and if not
registered is inadmissible in evidence but is admissible in evidence only
for a collateral purpose. Under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908
if the document is not registered, it can be looked into only for a
collateral purpose and not beyond that.
9 Section 49 of the Registration Act reads as under:
"49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be
registered - No document required by Section 17 [or by any
provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) to be
registered shall -
(a) affect any Immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such
property or conferring such power, unless it has been
registered:
Provided that an unregistered document affecting Immovable
property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as
evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under
Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as
evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected
by registered instrument."
10 A collateral purpose has been defined in several judicial
pronouncements. The Supreme Court , in the case of (2008) 8 SCC 564
K.B.Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd. looked
into the question of "collateral purpose" qua unregistered documents.
The principles culled out are extracted below:
"21. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of
this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is
evident that:
1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not
admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration
Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an
evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to
Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible
from, the transaction to effect which the law required
registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself
required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a
transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in
Immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and
upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of
registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and
that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important
clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose."
11 K.B.Saha referred to Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh Vs. Ratiram
MANU/SC/0562/1969 which defined "collateral purpose" as any
purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or
extinguishing a right to immovable property.
12 This Court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to
maintenance charges. Maintenance charges would not amount to a
collateral purpose. Lock in period also not being a collateral purpose
has not been pressed.
13 However, the purpose of letting which was admittedly for a
commercial purpose, the nature of the premises i.e. the premises owned
by the plaintiff and having been handed over to the defendant for the
said purpose and the admitted rate of rent being Rs.56,420/-, this Court
is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to this admitted rent as claimed
by him. Accordingly, this Court passes a decree in the sum of
Rs.56,420/- x 3 =Rs.1,69,260/- (which is the admitted rent for the period
between November, 2012 to January, 2013) along with interest @ 9%
per annun from the date of decree till realization.
14 In the ex parte affidavit by way of evidence, the plaintiff has
claimed Rs.65,100/- per month as the future charges also. There is no
evidence to show that the properties in the adjoining vicinity would be
earning more rent than the admitted rent of Rs.56,420/-. Accordingly,
this Court is of the view that the future damages/mesne profits for the
period i.e. w.e.f. February, 2013 to 07.6.2014 (for 16 months) also be
calculated at the rate of Rs.56,420/- which works out to Rs.9,02,720/-.
15 Accordingly a decree in the sum of Rs.9,02,720/- + Rs.1,69,260/-
= Rs.10,71,980/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the
decree till realization. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the
plaintiff.
16 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly subject to payment of the
additional Court fee.
17 File be consigned to record room.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2015
ndn
