S. SHANKAR Vs. RAMA PANELS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant no.1 had taken on leave and license basis the suit premises in Greater Kailash-II from the plaintiffs for the residence of defendant no.2, one of its Directors. However, the defendants started using the suit premises without the permission of the plaintiffs for commercial purposes. Upon the expiry of the license period on 07/08/2008, the defendants did not vacate the suit premises and so the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and mesne profits etc. In that suit an application under Order II Rule 2 the Code of Civil Procedure('C.P.C.' in short) was also filed seeking leave of the Court to file a suit subsequently for claiming compensation/damages on account of unjust enrichment of the defendants because of their having put the suit premises to commercial use since the details of the misuse were not known to the plaintiffs at the time of filing of that suit. Though the defendants had contested that suit but a decree for possession was passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants challenged that decree in appeal but during the pendency of their appeal in this Court the decree got executed and possession of the suit premises came to be delivered to the plaintiffs on 12/05/2010 i.e. during the pendency of the present suit which was filed in February, 2010. Subsequently a decree for mesne profits @ Rs. 2000/- per day was also passed in that suit on 01/02/2011.

(2.) The plaintiffs are claiming in the present suit composite damages @ Rs. 1,50,000/- p.m. from 20/06/2007 onwards because of their having put the tenanted premises to commercial use. The defendants are contesting the present suit, inter alia, on the grounds that it is barred under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. and the plaint discloses no cause of action and also that the suit premises was being used only for residential premises and so no question of plaintiffs claiming damages from them arises. It is also pleaded tat a landlord cannot in any event claim any share in the business profits of the tenant.

(3.) After completion of pleadings when the matter came up before the Court on 29/03/2011 the counsel for the defendants submitted that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 and also Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The Court then fixed the matter for hearing the submissions from both sides on those objections, though no formal preliminary issues were framed that day. Parties were also directed to file their written submissions which they did. However, before the Court could hear the submissions of the parties on the aforesaid two objections of the defendants the plaintiffs came out with an application under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C.(being I.A.No.13085/2011) for passing a decree for payment to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 67,500/- p.m. on the basis of admission allegedly made by the defendants in some documents submitted with Trade & Taxes Department of Delhi Government for getting registration under the Value Added Tax Act,2004 that the suit premises was their principal place of business and the rent for the suit premises which they were occupying was Rs. 67,500/- p.m. Those documents were admitted by the defendants during admission denial of documents of 19/10/2010 and exhibited collectively as Ex.P-4 by the Joint Registrar.