NIRMAL GUPTA Vs. GANTON INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the plaintiff seeks a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of the admissions made by the defendant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the defendants have clearly admitted the relationship of a landlord and tenant qua the suit property. The defendants have further admitted the rate of rent and lease agreement dated 15th February, 2010 vide which suit property was leased out ON a monthly rent of Rs. 3 lakhs to M/s. GT Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The defendants have admitted that defendant No.2 is staying in the suit property in her capacity as Director of defendant No.1 as she was put into the premises pursuant to the said lease dated 15th February, 2010. The defendants have admitted that lease deed is not registered and therefore the tenancy has to be on month-to-month basis. The rent of the premises being more than 3,500/- per month, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act do not apply. The defendants have also admitted that notice in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short the TP Act) has been issued and the tenancy has been validly terminated. Further M/s Ganton India Pvt. Ltd. vide its reply dated 22nd September, 2012 to the plaintiffs have admitted that the execution of the amendment agreement was without consent or knowledge of the Board of Directors of M/s Ganton India Pvt. Ltd. Further on coming to know of the demenour of defendant No.2, the Board of Directors of Ganton India Pvt. Ltd. have decided to take appropriate action to cancel the lease of the property as the property was taken on lease in company's name illegally and without authorization from the company, return the property immediately to plaintiffs and utilize the deposits paid towards lease of the property for settlement of the outstanding rent due to the plaintiffs. The only dispute raised by the defendant No.2 is that the defendant No.2 in her written statement claims that the plaintiff No.2 entered into an oral agreement to sell the suit property to defendant No.2. Further no document in this regard has been filed and thus the plea is wholly false, irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Reliance is placed on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India and Ors., 2000 7 SCC 120; Brig. H.S. Cheema & Anr. Vs. State Bank of India, 1999 80 DLT 117; Bai Chanchal and Ors. Vs. Syed Jalaluddin and Ors., 1971 AIR(SC) 1081; Kesho Lal Kapur & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar & Anr., 1999 81 DLT 20; Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 1997 66 DLT 54; R.N. Sachdeva Vs. Ram Lal Mahajan Charitable Trust, 1997 3 AD(Del) 997; Surjit Singh Vs. H.N. Pahilaj (Decd.) Through LRs, 1997 65 DLT 22; Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Ors., 2005 AIR(SC) 2765; PPA Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mangal Sain Mittal, 2010 166 DLT 84 and M/s. Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers Vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, 1976 4 SCC 687.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 on the other hand contends that a perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 does not make out an unequivocal or unambiguous admission and in the absence thereof no decree on admissions can be passed against the defendant No.2 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr., 2010 6 SCC 601. During the subsistence of the lease agreement with the defendants, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 entered into an oral agreement to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs. 50 crores out of which Rs. 72 lakhs has been paid as consideration. It is for this reason that the lease deed executed was not registered. Further the agreement to sell or the sale deed was not executed as all the parties did not agree on behalf of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff No.2 later on informed that other parties were also agreeable to the sale to the defendant No.2 and thus received periodic payments. The receipts for the consideration paid in relation to the sale of the suit property are worded differently which clearly show that the said amount was not given as rentals but for some other reason. Further, the receipts in relation to the sale consideration are signed by the Directors of the companies of which defendant No.2 is the only common Director. The rent receipts are admittedly signed by plaintiff No.2 whereas the receipts for maintenance have been acknowledged by Ujjwal Enterprieses and Neeraj Enterprises.