RANJIT KAUR Vs. GOBIND IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Ranjit Kaur, hereinafter described as the plaintiff has filed the suit for ejectment, damages, mesne profits/arrears of rent and pendent life interest against the defendants. The relevant facts are that in January 1991 Mohan Magotra, Director of defendants 1 to 3 companies misled the plaintiff. She was made to agree to let out certain portions of property bearing no. B-68 Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi on terms and conditions which were totally favourable to defendants 1 to 3 on rent. It was totally unrealistic and insignificant rent as per the prevalent rents. Mohan Magotra misled the plaintiff and made her execute three separate lease deeds dated 16/1/1991 by virtue of which separate portions were let to defendants 1 to 3. They were only two to pay Rs.1500.00, Rs.3000.00and Rs.3000.00 per month for each lease agreement. It was agreed that lease shall commence on 16/1/1991 and shall subject terms thereof continue for a term of 5 years with an option to the tenants to renew the lease for a further three extensions of 5 years.

(2.) . It is further alleged that in furtherance of his evil designs the defendants also managed to reserve the right to sub-let the whole or any part of the suit premises. Acting on basis of the said power to sublet the premises defendants 1 to 3 by virtue of lease deed dated 31/5/1991 agreed to let out the entire suit premises to defendant no.4 (M/s ANZ Grindlays Bank) on terms and conditions and for rent as contained therein. Though defendants 1 to 3 were, paying a paltry amount of Rs.7500.00 per month they let the premises to the said bank, defendant no.4, at a monthly rent of Rs.2,50,000.00. Apart from above, defendants 1 to 3 were also entitled to hire charges towards fixture and furnitures. The rent so arrived at between defendants 1 to 3 and defendant no.4 has been mentioned separately for each portion. The plaintiff was further misled into executing an addendum dated 20/11/1991. As per addendum executed between defendant 1 and plaintiff It was agreed by defendant 1 that it would pay a sum of Rs.3000.00 from the date of the execution of the lease deed instead of Rs.1500.00 as originally provided and it further provided that lease deed dated 31/5/1991 shall be co-terminus with lease deed dated 16/1/1991.

(3.) . Plaintiff's case is that initial lease was for five years subject to renewal of five years provided one months' notice is given. No notice was issued by defendants and no new lease deed was executed. It is claimed that in the absence of any renewal the tenancy with the efflux of time on the expiry of the initial period of five years became a month to month tenancy and came to an end by efflux of time on 31/5/2000. The plaintiffs claim that they are liable to get the possession and also mesne profits @ Rs.2,50,000.00 per month.