Delhi High Court
Tarneet Singh Chawla vs Seva Singh on 1 August, 2017
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 01st August, 2017
+ FAO 565/2016 & CM No.45097/2016
TARNEET SINGH CHAWLA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ramesh K. Sharma, Adv.
versus
SEVA SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manjeet Singh Sharma and Ms.
Nidhi Gupta, Advs.
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. for SDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 08th September, 2016
whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the respondent's application
under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure by directing the
appellant to pay Rs.22,000/- per month w.e.f. from March, 2010 along with
interest @ 6% per annum to the respondent.
2. The respondent instituted a suit for possession and mesne profits
against the appellant in respect of the shop bearing No.3 on the ground floor
in property No.13, NWA Road, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi-
110026. The cause of action pleaded in the said suit is that the respondent is
the owner of the aforesaid shop and he let out the same to the appellant by a
unregistered lease deed dated 25th January, 2003; the rent was increased to
Rs.22,000/- w.e.f. 01st February, 2006; and the respondent terminated the
lease by notice dated 09th September, 2009. The respondent filed an
application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for
seeking direction to the appellant to pay rent @ Rs.22,000/- per month from
September, 2009.
3. The appellant contested the application on the ground that that the
respondent made a false complaint dated 10th September, 2010 to the
Municipal Corporation whereupon MCD issued show cause notice and in
pursuance to MCD Tribunal order for demolition on 12th March, 2012, the
appellant had to demolish the front of the shop. The appellant claimed
suspension of rent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that the
Municipal Corporation sealed the suit property on the ground of
unauthorised construction on 03rd May, 2017 and the suit property is lying
sealed at present.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent urged at the time of hearing that
the front portion of the suit shop has not been demolished by the Municipal
Corporation but by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant himself
demolished the front portion of the suit property which has been admitted in
para 5 of the appeal and para 2 of the reply to the application.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
compelled to demolish the portion of the shop on account of demolition
notice given by the Municipal Corporation.
7. Section 108 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act provides that if the
lease premises are destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit
for the purposes for which it was let, the lease shall at the option of the
lessee be void. In that view of the matter, the appellant had the option to
surrender the lease when a portion of the suit property was demolished.
However, since appellant chose to continue the possession, the liability to
pay the rent would continue.
8. There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 08th September,
2016. However, it is clarified that the amount directed to be paid by the
appellant in terms of the impugned order shall be subject to final outcome of
the suit.
9. At this stage, the appellant present in Court submits that he is willing
to surrender the suit property to the respondent without prejudice to his
rights and contentions.
10. Learned counsels for the parties submit that there is no impediment in
the handing over of the possession by the appellant to the respondent.
11. Since the suit property is lying sealed, SDMC is directed to de-seal
the suit property on 10th August, 2017 at 11:00 am to enable the appellant to
remove his articles from the shop. The appellant shall handover the keys of
the suit property to respondent after removing his articles whereupon MCD
shall re-seal the property on 11th August, 2017 at 05:00 pm. It is clarified
that this order shall not in any manner affect the statutory or other order
passed by the Corporation with respect to the suit property and this order is
being passed merely to enable the appellant to remove his articles from the
suit property and handover the legal possession to the respondent.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
13. The Trial Court record be returned back forthwith.
14. Copy of this judgement be given dasti to learned counsels for the
parties as well as Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
SDMC under signature of Court Master.
AUGUST 01, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak
