JAGANNATH CHAUHAN Vs. S C NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen against the judgment and decree passed by learned Single Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent thereby granting a decree against the defendant for possession of flat No. 118, 1st Floor in the Complex of Nav Niti Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited situated at Plot No. 51, Patparganj, Delhi.

(2.) Facts in brief are that on 20.8.1998 the plaintiff filed suit against the appellant for grant of a decree for possession and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5,000.00 per month or at such higher rate as may be prevalent in future, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff is a practicing lawyer and the appellant is also a practicing lawyer; plaintiff is a founder member of Nav Niti Co-operative Group Housing Society and was allotted a flat in question by the society; the appellant since about 1992 was working for the plaintiff as Junior and used to carry out investigation of title of properties and as such relations were cordial; in or about February, 1996 the appellant informed the plaintiff that he and his family members were in need of accommodation and requested the plaintiff to permit him and his family members to stay in the suit premises; on the basis of the assurance and representation and in view of the cordial relation, the appellant was permitted by the plaintiff to stay with his family in the suit premises; no right, title or interest was created in favour of the appellant; his stay was at the pleasure of the plaintiff, who was not charging any rent, fee or any other amount for the appellant's stay in the suit premises; in or about January, 1998 the appellant was informed by the plaintiff that the permission to stay, granted to him in the premises was being withdrawn; the appellant was accordingly requested to leave and vacate the flat but despite such request the appellant failed to do so; a notice was also served upon the appellant to vacate the premises failing which he was informed that suit will be filed. Claiming that the stay of the appellant in the premises was only on the basis of the permission granted by the plaintiff without creating any relation of landlord and tenant; lessor or lessee and after the permission had ceased to exist his possession was unauthorised, the suit was filed for the reliefs aforementioned.

(3.) The appellant contested the suit and filed his written statement on 12.1.1999. The appellant denied the plaintiffs right to claim possession, inter alia, alleging that he was not a junior but an associate of the plaintiff; he and plaintiff were working with M/s. Khaitan & Company, Advocates and Solicitors, which in mid of 1991 split into arid is known as Khaitan & Khaitan, Advocate; the appellant started his independent practice and also did private work of plaintiff as well as of Khaitan & Khaitan Co. After about one year the plaintiff also left Khaitan & Co. and started his own practice; in August, 1994, the plaintiff offered the appellant his revenue work as he was having expertise therein; it was agreed that the plaintiff would give lesser amount towards retainership charges, which started at Rs. 500.00 and with passage of time was increased to Rs. 2500.00 per month; in addition to this, the appellant was to be paid separately for investigation of title and documentation; professional fee had to shared in equal shares; the appellant worked with the plaintiff till 1.11.1996. During long association the appellant conducted various title investigations and prepared his reports and planned strategy with respect to the lands situated in numerous villages; both of them also worked together for well known groups like Malibue Group, Teharn Group, the Great Eastern Shipping Co., Shital Group etc. as per list annexure "A" attached to the written statement; the plaintiff was always paid directly by the clients and in turn the plaintiff was to pay 50% amounts to the appellant, which he failed, which amount was recoverable from the plaintiff. After narrating further details, it is alleged by the appellant that in the mid of 1992 amongst other works, the plaintiff assigned a big project to the appellant, which the appellant completed within a period of 677 months and submitted his reports running into 250 pages; the appellant raised initial bill for which the plaintiff had to receive a sum of Rs. 4,84,000.00 from the clients out of which the appellant's share was Rs. 2,42,000.00; no payment was given to the appellant except an assurance of transferring of the suit flat in future as and when allotted to the plaintiff; various-other projects were assigned by the plaintiff to the appellant and considerable amount became due and payable to the appellant. In the month of March, 1996 peaceful physical and vacant possession of the flat was handed over to the appellant by the plaintiff with instructions not to disclose the facts of transfer of the flat to any one including the society. It was orally settled that all charges like maintenance, electricity and water shall be paid by the appellant to the society and a sum of Rs. 700.00 per month shall be paid in cash to the plaintiff to meet the house tax of the suit premises to be imposed in future for which the society was in process of assessing the same. In order to conceal actual facts of transfer from the society, the said amount of Rs. 700.00 was agreed to be shown as rent of the flat and it was further settled that all loan instalments of the suit premises shall be paid by the plaintiff to the society and at the time of transfer of the premises, the plaintiff shall pay all the loan instalments in lump-sum in one go. In 1996 the appellant completed the title investigation of 330, acres of various villages. The plaintiff and the appellant were entitled to Rs. 7,26,000.00 - jointly as professional charges out of which the appellant's share was to the tune of Rs. 3,63,000.00 and at the instance of the plaintiff, the appellant raised an initial bill of Rs. 1,69,000.00 in the end of year 1996 out of which nothing was paid to the appellant. The appellant further alleged that a sum of Rs. 15,26,900.00 had been due and payable to him and after adjusting a sum of Rs. 6,00,000.00 against the suit premises, a sum of Rs. 9,26,900.00 is still outstanding for which the appellant stated in the written statement that he will take appropriate action for recovery. The appellant denied having entered the suit premises on the basis of the alleged promises and assurances but pleaded that after summer vacation in the year 1996 the plaintiff offered the appellant to join his office permanently; the appellant first demanded that the suit premises be first transferred to him in clearance of his dues; instead of transferring the suit premises; the plaintiff had stopped paying retainership amount; the plaintiff had retained the amount, which he had charged as the appellant's share and with the said amount the plaintiff purchased numerous properties either in his own name or in the name of his family members, the details of which the defendant gave in Annexure- "C". It is alleged that the said properties were purchased by the plaintiff for appreciation of money and out of the money due and payable by the plaintiff to the appellant. The appellant was assured by the plaintiff that the said properties shall be sold and the share of the appellant will be paid and a sum, of Rs. 6,00,000.00 shall be adjusted against payment of the suit premises, which had been handed over by the plaintiff to the appellant on ownership basis pursuant to the oral agreement between the parties. The flat in dispute was absolutely unfinished having no facility. On these basis the appellant alleged that the claim of the plaintiff is mala fide, unjust, being untenable in law and the defendant is not entitled to possession.