Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar Sehrawat vs Laxmi on 22 March, 2024
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 233/2023 CM APPL. 54232/2023
% Date of Decision: 22.03.2024
RAJESH KUMAR SEHRAWAT ..... APPELLANT
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharma Darmora and Mr.
Nitin Darmora, Advocates
versus
LAXMI ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. J.B Mudgil, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the
judgment/decree dated 09.08.2023 (hereafter the 'impugned judgment')
passed by the learned Commercial Court in CS (COMM) No. 428/2022
captioned Laxmi v. Rajesh Kumar Sehrawat.
2. The learned Commercial Court, in terms of the impugned judgment
allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order XII Rule 6, read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter the 'CPC')
and partially decreed the suit of possession in favor of the respondent in
respect of the property bearing Shop No.G-6, Ground Floor, Plot No. 5,
Sector-4, Malik Plaza, Dwarka, New Delhi (hereafter the demised premises).
3. There is no dispute as to the jural relationship between the appellant
and the respondent. Admittedly, the appellant was inducted as a tenant in the
demised premises. The demised premises was leased to the appellant by the
late husband of the respondent in the year 2014 for a period of four years.
The said lease expired in the year 2018. Thereafter, a fresh lease deed dated
06.08.2018 was executed between the appellant and the respondent's late
husband. The lease deed was registered. The term of the lease was for a
further period of four years commencing from 11.07.2018. Thus, the lease
was to expire on 11.07.2022. The parties had agreed that the monthly rent
would be ₹1,25,000/-. The appellant had also furnished a refundable security
deposit for a sum of ₹2,30,000/-.
4. It was the respondent's case that the appellant had defaulted in
payment of rent on several occasions. Accordingly, the respondent was not
willing to extend the lease and sought the appellant's eviction from the
demised premises.
5. Notwithstanding, that the lease deed was expired, the appellant had
refused to vacate the demised premises. Thereafter, the respondent sent the
legal notice calling upon the appellant to vacate the demised premises. It is
stated that instead of vacating the demised premises, the appellant filed a
suit for permanent injunction.
6. The appellant filed the written statement admitting some of the
material facts. Accordingly, the respondent filed an application under Order
XII Rule 6 of the CPC seeking a decree of eviction. The said application was
allowed and the appellant filed the present appeal.
7. The present appeal was listed on 17.10.2023 and the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant made the statement that the appellant would
vacate the demised premises within the period of six months from that date
and also pay the rent as agreed between the parties for the said period.
Although, we were not inclined to pass any interim order, in view of the
said statement, we stayed the operation of the impugned judgment.
8. The present appeal was thereafter listed on 17.11.2023. On that date,
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant had not paid
the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). He also fairly stated that if the appellant
pays the TDS and up-to-date rent, the respondent would have no objection to
the appellant continuing to occupy the demised premises for a period of six
months from 17.10.2023. He also stated that if the arrears are paid in full,
the respondent would not press the suit for any further relief.
9. The said suggestion was agreeable to the learned counsel for the
appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal was listed on 12.03.2024 and
further on 13.03.2024. On the said dates, this Court was informed that the
appellant had furnished the amount of TDS for the financial year ending on
31.03.2023 and prior financial years. It was further stated that the appellant
would deposit the TDS for the financial year 2023-24 with the Income Tax
Authorities in accordance with the law.
10. It was also stated that the appellant had deposited the entire rent up-
to-date. This was stoutly contested by the learned counsel for the
respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court had called upon the
parties to submit the statement of account.
11. The respondent has filed the statement which indicates that rent for
the months of October 2023 to March 2024 (aggregating a sum of
₹6,75,000/-) have not been paid. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has not disputed the statement of account provided by the
respondent. However, he states that rents for the month of October,
November and December 2023 were deposited with the Registry of this
Court.
12. Concededly, the rent for the period of January 2024 to March 2024
has not been deposited. Thus, the statement made by the learned counsel for
the appellant on the last date of hearing that the entire dues have been paid
up-to-date, was an incorrect statement.
13. It is also apparent that the appellant has not lived up to his statement
made before this Court on 17.10.2023 and 17.11.2023. We are not inclined
to grant the appellant any further indulgence.
14. We find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. As noted above,
the jural relationship of a landlord and a tenant is established. The term of
the lease deed has expired. Undisputedly, the appellant has no right to
continue occupying the demised premises.
15. The appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs
quantified at ₹1.00 lakh. The amount deposited by the appellant with the
Registry of this Court is directed to be released to the respondent.
16. The respondent is at liberty to enforce the steps for enforcement of the
impugned judgment and is also at liberty to pursue the proceedings for his
monetary claims.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MARCH 22, 2024
g.joshi
