Mr. Satpal Sachdeva vs M/S Balaji Agriculture Food ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 7578 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Order delivered on: 5th October, 2015

+                       CS (OS) No.649/2015

       MR. SATPAL SACHDEVA                                 ..... Plaintiff
                    Through         Mr.Anil K. Kher, Sr. Adv. with
                                    Mr.Kunal Kher, Adv.

                        versus

       M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURE FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD
                                                ..... Defendant
                     Through Mr.Rahul Gupta, Adv. with
                             Mr.S.Tabrez & Mr.Shekhar Gupta,
                             Advs.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)

CS(OS) No.649/2015, I.A. No.4951/2015 (u/o XXXIX R.10 CPC), I.A. No.4952/2015 (u/o II R.2 CPC) & I.A. No.13721/2015 (u/o XV-A CPC), by plaintiff and C.C. No.82/2015 (counter-claim by defendant)

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages as well as for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant.

2. The plaintiff is the owner of the premises admeasuring 3000 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No.285, situated in Village Khanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, now known as 75-A, Sainik Farms, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises'). The plaintiff had given the suit premises on lease to the defendant vide Agreement

dated 31st October, 2014. It is an unregistered lease agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement, the defendant was to deposit a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- being three months advance as interest-free security and one month rent in advance, i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-. Therefore, a total sum of Rs.9,60,000/- was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant issued two cheques in favour of the plaintiff for the said sum, the details of which are given in para 4 of the plaint. Both the cheques were drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The said cheques were dishonoured on presentation for the reason "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 1st December, 2014 for the dishonour of the cheques to the defendant. The defendant sent a reply dated 20th December, 2014 and a rejoinder to the said reply was sent by the plaintiff on 7th January, 2015. As the defendant did not pay the amount towards the dishonor of the said cheques, the plaintiff also filed the complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi.

3. Admittedly, the defendant is in occupation of the suit premises since 1st October, 2014 and the lease commencement date is 15th October, 2014. As of today, the defendant admittedly has not paid any amount of rent including the security amount. As per the averments made in the plaint, the defendant failed to come forward to have the lease deed registered in the office of the Sub Registrar. It is also averred in the plaint that the Director of the defendant, Mr.Vikas Garg had carried out unauthorized construction in the suit premises and had caused extensive damages to the suit premises. In view of the said default, the plaintiff had no option but to file the suit after

serving the notice for termination of leased property on 8th January, 2015 calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the suit premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Despite service of notice, the defendant neither vacated and handed over the possession of the suit premises nor paid the outstanding dues to the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff has claimed the rent for the premises from October, 2014 to January, 2015 @ Rs.2,40,000/- per month as well as damages for the months of February and March, 2015.

5. Upon service, the defendant filed the written statement as well as the counter-claim. The defendant has not denied the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. He has also not denied the fact that the cheques have been dishonoured and has also not denied that not even a single penny has been paid to the plaintiff. He has admitted that the suit premises has been enjoyed by the defendant at least from the month of March, 2015 till date after repairs works allegedly done by him.

6. In a nut-shell, the defence of the defendant is that at the time of execution of the lease deed, it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would pay the amount of Rs.15 lac to the defendant as written and mentioned on the second back page of the lease deed and was duly signed and thumbed by the plaintiff. It is stated that by 31st October, 2014 the defendant had already spent Rs.15 lac on repairs and renovations etc. and removal of Malba. It is stated that the plaintiff had further promised and assured that since the defendant-Company had to spend substantial amount on the repairs and renovation of the suit premises, he would not present the two

cheques issued by the defendant-Company towards security deposit and payments of monthly rents. It was also agreed for and on behalf of the plaintiff that since there was no cupboard in any of the rooms, the defendant would purchase and get the cupboards fixed in all the rooms in the range of Rs.16 to 17 lac and the plaintiff would pay back the said amount to the defendant. Therefore, with the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant had spent more than Rs.34 lac on the said repairs.

7. In the written statement, it is also disputed by the defendant about the receipt of the notice. It is also mentioned that the plaintiff agreed that the servant of the plaintiff, who was residing on the terrace floor above the first floor with his family, would vacate the same and the possession of the same would be handed over to the defendant. However, the servant is still staying there. The plaintiff disputes all the averments made by the defendant.

8. The defendant submits that all the back pages of the said deed are in the handwriting of the plaintiff. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff states that the same are not in the handwriting of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is prepared to file an affidavit in this regard and all the pleas raised by the defendant in the written statement and counter claim are false and frivolous. He further submits that if necessary, the plaintiff would be moving an application for sending the handwriting of the plaintiff for the purpose of examination.

9. Having gone through the contents of the plaint as well as the written statement and the counter-claim, it is evident that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. The defendant is the tenant in the

suit property. It is an unregistered lease deed. The plaintiff had issued the notice for terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, (though the receipt of notice is not admitted by the defendant). But as per settled law now, the notice is not necessary. Being unregistered lease deed, the tenancy becomes month to money tenancy under the said provisions. The defendant has admitted not paid any amount to the plaintiff who is enjoying the suit premises. The cheques issued by the defendant for security amount as well as rent have been dishonoured. It is a fit case in which the Court ought to exercise its discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree for possession. Even otherwise the plaintiff's application under Order XV-A CPC is pending for disposal. The written application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is not necessary as per the provisions. Hence, the decree for possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by allowing the prayer made in I.A. No.13721/2015. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession in respect of the suit premises admeasuring 3000 Sq. Yards forming part of Khasra No.285, situated in Village Khanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, now known as 75-A, Sainik Farms, New Delhi and the fittings and fixtures installed therein.

10. I.A. No. 13721/2015 is disposed of.

11. As far as the other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are concerned, the defendant is claiming certain amount allegedly spent by him. An inquiry in this regard is gone into.

12. Written statement to the counter-claim now be filed by the plaintiff within four weeks as the same was not filed due to non- payment of cost which has been paid today in Court. The original

lease deed produced is taken on the record. The Registry would tag the same property.

13. The parties to appear before the Joint Registrar on 7th January, 2016 for admission/denial of the documents and thereafter, the matter be listed before Court on 24th February, 2016 for framing of issues with regard to the remaining reliefs claimed by the plaintiff along with pending applications.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE OCTOBER 05, 2015