KAMAL MITRA CHENOY Vs. DUNLOP INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No.1 (Dr. Kamal Mitra Chenoy) is husband and Plaintiff No.2 (Dr. Anuradha Mitra Chenoy) is the wife. A suit for eviction/possession and permanent injunction was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants with the allegations that Property No.19, Block No.171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, as described in Para 1 of the plaint was let out by Plaintiffs to Defendant No.1 (M/s. Dunlop India Limited) through its authorised signatory Mr. R.K. Kapoor for the residence of Defendant No.2 (Dr. A.P. Singh) and his family members vide a registered Lease Deed for a period of three years with effect from 01.08.2009. If the lessee was desirous of renewal of the lease, he was required to request the lessor in writing at least three months in advance before expiry of the term of the lease. Unless specifically agreed in writing by the lessor (Plaintiff No.1), the lease was not to be renewed automatically on the expiry of the lease period. Similarly, by a Hire Agreement dated 01.08.2009, the fittings and fixtures as mentioned in Annexure A to the Agreement were given on hire. Simultaneously with the agreement of lease on the expiry of lease period, the Hire Agreement was to automatically come to an end. The rent of the premises was Rs.1,60,000/- payable by Defendant No.1 to Plaintiff No.1 whereas the hire charges were Rs.2,40,000/- per month payable by Defendant No.1 to Plaintiff No.2.

(2.) In the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) being IA No.1072/2013, Defendant No.1 contends that Plaintiff No.2 is an unnecessary and improper party in the suit for eviction. Plaintiff No.2 is not entitled for relief as prayed in the plaint and thus, the name of Plaintiff No.2 is liable to be deleted from the array of parties.

(3.) In the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (being IA No.4904/2013) moved by Defendant No.1, it has been averred that the basis of the suit are two different agreements with two different parties. Thus, it is claimed that the suit can be maintained either by Plaintiff No.1 or by Plaintiff No.2. Since the Plaintiffs have joined two different causes of action, the Plaint is liable to be rejected.