VIMAL KHANNA Vs. AYUSH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

(2.) The application stands disposed of. Caveat No. 44/2023 Since learned counsel for the caveator/respondents has put in appearance, the caveat stands discharged. FAO 11/2023 & CM Appl.2557/2023 (Stay) 1. By way of the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 CPC, the appellant/defendant seeks setting aside of order dtd. 14/9/2022 passed by the learned ADJ-02 (North-West) Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS DJ No. 63/2021, whereby the application filed by respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC was allowed and the appellant directed to pay arrears of rent from May 2020 onwards @ Rs.27,500.00 per month till date (at the admitted rent i.e. @ Rs.27,500.00 per month) within 30 days and further to continue to make payment of rent @ Rs.27,500.00 p.m. on or before the 15th of the succeeding month during the pendency of the Suit. 2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the aforementioned Suit was filed by the respondents (respondent No.1 being partner of respondent No.1-firm) for possession, recovery of rent/mesne profits/damages. In the Suit, it was claimed that the respondents were the owner-landlord of property bearing MIG Flat No. 98, First Floor, MIG Flats, Block-AN, Shalimar Residential Scheme, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the 'suit property') and the appellant was inducted as a tenant therein. From May, 2020 onwards, the appellant started defaulting in the payment of rent and so, the respondents had served him with a statutory notice dtd. 26/10/2020 terminating tenancy in the suit property and calling upon the appellant to vacate it on or before 15/11/2020. However, the appellant neither vacated the suit property nor paid the defaulted amount due towards the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is the owner of the suit property by virtue of an Agreement to Sell orally arrived at between him and respondent No.1. As such, he was not required to pay any rent to the respondents. Rather, instalments towards sale consideration were to be paid. It is further contended that the Suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable, the same being hit by Sec. 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.