NISHA GUPTA Vs. GKB OPTOLAB PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for ejectment and recovery of money. The plaintiffs are the owners of a shop admeasuring 550 square feet on the ground floor of property no. G-27, NDMC Part-I, New Delhi. Initially, the property was owned by plaintiff nos. 1, 3 and two HUFs namely S.N. Gupta and Sons (HUF) and Manoj Gupta and Sons (HUF). It was let out by plaintiff nos. 1, 3 and the two aforesaid HUFs to the defendant vide lease deed dated 28th April, 2005. During subsistence of the lease, the two HUFs i.e. S.N. Gupta and Sons (HUF) and Manoj Gupta and Sons (HUF) sold their respective shares in the property to plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 30th May, 2007. The premises in question was initially let out for a period of three years commencing 1st May, 2005. Since the lease was extendable for two terms of three years each with an escalation of 15% of the last paid rent after expiry of every three years, the tenancy was extended for three years with effect from 1 st May, 2008. However, the fresh sale deed was not executed by the parties on expiry of three years commencing 1st May, 2008. The case of the plaintiff is that since the lease deed was registered for a period of five years commencing 1 st May, 2005 and expired by efflux of time on 30th April, 2010. This is also the case of the plaintiff that besides rent, the defendant was also liable to pay electricity and water charges as well as service tax. Vide legal notice dated 11th April, 2011, the plaintiffs required the defendant

(2.) TO hand over physical possession of the tenanted premises on or before 30 th April, 2011. Since the premises was not vacated on 30th April, 2011, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking possession of the tenanted premises. The plaintiffs have claimed Rs. 10,86,750.00 towards rent for the period from 1st February, 2011 to 30th April, 2011; and Rs. 6 lakhs towards damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per month with effect from 1st May, 2011 till filing of the suit. A sum of Rs. 40,760.00 has also been claimed towards interest on arrears of rent. The plaintiffs have also sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay all dues including service tax and interest on them.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that payments in terms of agreement between the parties are being made by the defendant to the plaintiffs. Therefore, as far as relief of possession is concerned, the suit has become infructuous and as far as recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation charges are concerned, the same are being paid in installments in terms of settlement between the parties. The only issue which remains is payment of service tax on the rent.