The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Siddhatha Singh vs Ajit Singh Bawa (Deceased) Through Lrsconsisting of JusticesSaurabh Banerjee and Suresh Kumar Kaitopined that if a contract contains a clause providing for some sort of waiver and/ or suspension of rent, it is only then that the tenant could claim the same.
Facts
This appeal was filed by the Appellant-tenant, the original defendant before the learned trial court (“Appellant”) who was permitted to use the premises in question for carrying on authorised commercial activity deemed fit or proper by it during the period of lockdown, against the impugned judgement whereby, the learned trial court allowed the application under O13A CPC read with Section 151CPC read with Section 3 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (collectively referred as “O13Aapplication”) filed by the respondent-landlord, the original plaintiff before the learned trial court (“Respondent”) and decreed the suit for possession, arrears of rent along with mesne profits (“suit”)in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The learned trial court had wrongly applied the provision of Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 when the parties were bound by the Lease Deed executed inter-se. As there was no commercial use of the premises permissible and/ or possible during the aforesaid period in dispute before the learned trial court, the respondent was not entitled to rent for the said period.
Respondent:
Observations of the Court
The Bench, while talking about the introductionand purpose of O13ACPCnoted that this provision was specifically introduced to adjudicate and decide the issue(s) at the threshold itself without resorting to a prolongated trial and to save time, effort and money by making it more convenient and expeditious for all concerned. Furthermore, an application under O13ACPCcan be allowed and a court can proceed to pass a summary judgment if a party has a real prospect of succeeding and/ or defending in the claim and there is no real purpose of proceeding to trial, i.e., recording oral evidence.
Upon careful perusal of the submissions, it was opined thatthe respondent was able to make out a case showing “real reason” and a “real justification” in his favour before the learned trial court to consider in order to invoke the force majeure clause and all the aforesaid requisites were squarely covered by the parties in the O13A application. Moreover, all the grounds raised by the appellant before this Court had already been raised and agitated before the learned trial court.
It was further noted that as the appellant neither chose to exercise his right to terminate the Lease Deed nor chose to vacate the said premises at any point of time until termination thereof by the respondent, he was always in possession of the said premises all throughout the period of lockdown in dispute. As such, there was no such clause in the Lease Deed via which the appellant could claim non-payment of rent to the respondent. It was also noted that temporary non-use of premises during the lock down period cannot be interpreted as rendering either the stipulated term of the Lease Deed void or giving any benefit to the appellant to claim suspension of rent.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the appellant was bound to pay the rent as per the terms in the Lease Deed. So, the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Case:Siddhatha Singhvs Ajit Singh Bawa (Deceased) Through Lrs
Citation: RFA(COMM) 40/2022 & CM APPL.26156-158/2022
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Decided on: 12th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
