EARTHTECH ENTERPRISES LTD Vs. KULJIT SINGH BUTALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide judgment and decree dated 21st March, 2012 trial court has passed a decree of possession against the appellant-defendant, on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Case of the respondent, as emerges from the records, is that respondent was owner of property bearing no. 39, Sadhna Enclave, New Delhi. He leased out second floor of the said property (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") to appellant, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from 1st October, 2002 on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently, rent was increased to Rs. 30,000/- with effect from 1st April, 2003 pursuant to a fresh lease deed. Thereafter, rent was again increased to Rs. 35,000/- with effect from 31st October, 2006. Since the lease agreements were unregistered, tenancy was on month to month basis commencing from 1st day of each calendar month and ending on the last day of same month. Shri O.P. Aggarwal was controlling the appellant-company through dummy directors and it is he who was living in the suit property. Shri O.P. Aggarwal and appellant engaged themselves in fraudulent deals wherein huge amounts belonging to National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED) were used for importing petroleum products instead of utilising the same for agricultural purposes. Several criminal and civil proceedings were initiated against them. Respondent asked the appellant to vacate the suit property but to no avail. On 7th August, 2008 respondent terminated the lease by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 on the appellant. Appellant was called upon to vacate the suit property on or before 31st August, 2008. Instead of vacating the suit property, appellant filed a false and frivolous suit for specific performance. Appellant used to deduct TDS from the rent paid during the pre-notice period which was evident from the TDS certificates. Since appellant failed to vacate the suit property suit for ejectment was filed.

(3.) Respondent also claimed damages/mesne profit @ Rs. 1 lac per month and the suit in this regard is still pending.