K N CHHIBER Vs. SAE INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri K.N. Chibber (Plaintiff No.1) and Shri Sat Pal Gulati (Plaintiff No.2) have filed this suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits against SAI (India) Limited, Defendant No.1. In the plaint it has been stated that the Plaintiffs have jointly raised a two and half storyed building on the plot No. 29, Community Commercial Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and that they are joint owners and joint lessees thereof. This property was let out to Defendant No.1 in terms of a Lease Deed dated 3.5.1980. At the time of the filing of the suit the rent payable by Defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as `the Tenant') was Rs.16,940/- per month. For reason which need not be dilated upon the Plaintiffs determined the lease of the tenant by the issuance by issue of a legal Notice dated 6.11.1989. It has been averred that Plaintiff No.2 took a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from Defendant No.2 in February 1980 and by way of security agreed that Defendant No.2 would be entitled to his share of the rent of the premises for five years. It has been pleaded that in addition, Agreement to Sell dated 8.8.1980 as well as General Power of Attorney dated 12.18.1980 were executed. Plaintiff No.2 also consented to suffer fraudulently a consent decree on 21.10.1980. Some amount of Plaintiff No.2's entitlement to half share of the rent of the suit premises was made over to Defendant No.2. The Tenant was also informed of these transactions to enable it to make payment of the half share of rent. Significantly, in its letter dated 23.2.1981 the Tenant refused to accept Defendant No.2 as the co-owner till the obtainment of requisite permission and the registration of the Sale Deed/transfer. The Tenant further stated in the letter that Plaintiff No.2 "shall be free to pass on the monthly rent payable by us in terms of Lease Deed dated 23rd May, 1980 to Defendant No2." It has then been pleaded in the plaint that after payment of five years rent to Defendant No.2, Plaintiff No.2 revoked that arrangement. In paragraph 15 of the plaint it has been pleaded that the Tenant paid the Plaintiff No.2's share of the rent for August 1985 to Defendant No.2 and thereafter started depositing the rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Defendant No.2 filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. A spin-off that litigation was the Order of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri dated 7.11.1988 in SAO 225 of 1987 where it was, inter alia, observed that Defendant No.2 had not become a co-owner or co-lessee. These proceedings were permitted to be unconditionally withdrawn by Defendant No.2 by the Order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 2.2.1989. It has also been pleaded that the Tenant sent a misconceived reply dated 26.3.1990 to the legal `Notice to Quit' dated 6.11.1989.

(2.) I have perused the Written Statement filed by the Tenant. The receipt of legal Notice dated 6.11.1989 has not been denied; and could not have been denied in view of the Tenant's reply dated 26.3.1990. The Tenant's position is that the termination of the tenancy was illegal and void and, therefore, the tenancy subsists, and no claim for damages and mesne profits is maintainable or sustainable. On facts it has been asserted that since the inception of the lease the Tenant has been using the premises for office/commercial purposes and for purposes normally allied therewith or incidental thereto in consonance with the Lease Deed dated 23.5.1980. The Plaintiffs were, therefore, not entitled to claim any injunction for alleged misuser of these premises. The defence to the suit is to be found within the confines of the Tenant's Reply dated 26.3.1990 and are substantially what has been outlined above.

(3.) While the suit has been pending adjudication Plaintiff No.1 has received his half share of the rent and his ownership is not under challenge. I.A. No. 5516/2001 came up before Court on 7.8.2001 and was accepted. By Order dated 24.8.2001 it was observed that - "there was a dispute of ownership between Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.2. Both of them have settled their disputes by way of aforesaid application and the suit has been decreed in terms of the application in favour of the Plaintiff No.2. Since Defendant No.1 happens to be the tenant only and the dispute between Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.2 was that of the ownership of the premises, the interests of Defendant No.1 was in no way involved in the dispute between Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.2." On that date the Court rejected the Tenant's plea that it be permitted to file a reply to the compromise application.