LAXMI DEVI JHAWAR Vs. USHA TELEHOIST LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff has filed this suit for ejectment of the defendants and for mesne profits. The plaintiff claims to be the owner/landlady of the premises bearing No. C-20, Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is alleged that the defendant is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office at Calcutta. The defendant company has its local office at Delhi. The defendant company approached the plaintiff in the year 1976 for letting out the premises. A lease was created by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of the entire premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000.00 . The terms and conditions were confirmed by the parties by letter dated 26.2.1976. The rent of the premises was increased to Rs. 7,500.00 in 1981 and to Rs.l2,000.00 per month in 1987 and again to Rs.25,000.00 per month w.e.f. 1.4.1989.

(2.) The defendant company was using the premises for the residence of their officers from the beginning of the tenancy. In July 1990 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant company in order to oblige some of its officals/agents and in connivance with their officers, have sublet a part of the premises to one Shri B.M.Khanna, who was ex-employee of the company, without the consent of the plaintiff owner/landlady. The plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the premises as she was in bonafide need of the premises for her own residence and did not want to renew the lease any further. The plaintiff has no other residential property in Delhi for her residence. By a registered notice dated 7.8.1990 the plain tiff terminated the lease of the defendant and the defendant was required to deliver peaceful possession of the premises on or before 31.8.1990. The defendant failed to comply with the terms of the notice and therefore the necessity for filing the present suit.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit an application under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code has been filed on behalf of M/s. Machinery Sales and Service Corporation, New Delhi for being impleaded as a party to the present suit. This is the I.A. (Being I.A.No. 1336/1991) which is underdisposal. It is alleged in the application that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for eviction and for mesne profits. It is stated that the entire position taken by the plaintiff is not only false but dishonest. M/s. B.M.Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. was let out the entire ground floor of the premises bearing No.C-20, Friends Colony, New Delhi in the year 1982 at a monthly rental of Rs. 2,000.00 . The entire ground floor is comprised of the built portion, the front lawn, the backyard, the drive way and the side wall of the entire building and servant quarter with common facilities on the top floor. The said company was inducted as a tenant by the defendant herein and as such creation of the tenancy was confirmed by the defendant and the defendant wrote a communication dated 26.7.1982 to M/s. B.M.Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. confirming the tenancy. Eversince that date M/s. B.M. Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. continued in un-interrupted and exclusive possession of the entire ground floor of the premises in question till July 31, 1987 when by means of a tripartite arrangement a portion of the ground floor was allowed by the applicant herein to be let out by the defendant herein to M/s. Machinery Sales & Service Corporation. This letting out of a portion of the groundfloor to M/s. Machinery Sales & Service Corporation was confirmed by the defendant vide communication dated July 27, 1987. The rfemal of the premises that remained to be occupied by M/s. B.M.Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. remained at Rs.2,000.00 per month while M/s. Machinery Sales and Service Corporation, the applicant, started paying rent in respect of the portion taken by the applicant on rent from the defendant @ Rs. 2,000.00 per month. Thus the rent for the entire ground floor remained to be Rs. 4,000.00 per month. The plaintiff herein is the wife of the Chairman of the defendant company. In fact the family of Shri M.K. Jhawar is thee controlling factor so far as the defendant company is concerned. The defendant company, as well asthe present plaintiff all along knew about the creation of the tenancy, firstly in favour of M/s. B.M. Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. and then as already stated, in favour of the applicant. In fact both the Chairman of the defendant company, as well as the plaintiff have been on visiting terms with Shn B.M. Khanna, a Director of M/s. B.M. Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. In any' case there is documentary proof of the applicant being a regular tenant in the premises in question. So far as the so called unauthorised sub-letting is concerned, the same is totally false and baseless. The applicant is in posses-applicant hereein to be let out by the defendant herein to M/s. Macinery Sales & Service corporation. This letting out of a protion of the gound floor to M/s. Machinery Sales and Servic Corporation was confirmed by the defendant vide communication dated July 27, 1987. The rental of the primises that remained to be occupied by M/s B.M. Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. remained at Rs. 2,000.00 per month while M/s. Machinery Sales and Service Corporation, the applicant, started paying rent in respect of the portion taken by the applicant on rent from the defendant @ Rs. 2,000.00 per month. Thus the rent for the entire ground floor remained to be Rs. 4,000.00 per month. The plaintiff herein is the wife of the Chairman of the defendant company. In fact the family of Shri M.K. Jhawar is the controlling factor so far as the defendant company is concerned. The defendant company, as well as the present plaintiff allalong knew about the creation of the tenancy, firstly in favur of M/s. B.M. Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. and then as already stated, in favour of the applicant. In fact both the Chairman of the defendant company, as well as the plaintiff have been on visiting terms with Shri B.M. Khanna, a Directorof M/s. B.M. Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. In any case there is documentary proof of the applicant being a regular tenant in the premises in question. So far as the so called unauthorised sub-letting is concerned, the same is totally false and baseless. The applicant is in possession of the premises within the knowledge of the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot be heard to state otherwise. The present suit has been filed clandestingely by the plaintiff with the sole object of obtaining a collusive decree against the defendant and in exercise of that decree, throw out the applicant from the suit premises. The appplicant is entitled to pratect its tenancy. The tenancy of the premises has absolutely nothing to do with the business of agency being run by the applicant. In any case the applicant is entitled to protect its tenancy and is not only a proper but also a necessary party to the present suit. In these premises it is stated that the applicant be impleaded as a party to these proceedings.