GURBACHAN SINGH BHATIA Vs. ARVIND WABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit for decree of possession in respect of the ground floor of the suit property situated at D-6/16 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and a money decree for Rs.2,62,000.00 for alleged unlawful and unauthorised stay by the defendants in the suit premises from May to September, 1995 @ Rs.70,000.00 - per month and for a mandatory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from sub-letting or otherwise creating any charge or encumbrance. By this application, the plaintiff prays for directions, requiring the defendants to handover vacant and physical possession of the suit property i.e. ground floor, requiring the defendants to settle the accounts from 7.7.1995 till date and meet the liabilities in respect of water, electricity bills etc.; requiring the defendants to deposit the accounts of the suit premises with the Court.

(2.) The say of the plaintiff is that a three year lease agreement dated 31.7.1992 had been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 company at a monthly rental of Rs. 8,000.00. That the premises have been tenanted only for the residence of defendant No. 1 and his family; that clause 3 of the lease agreement provides that the lease may be extended/renewed for a further period with the mutual consent in-writing of both parties on terms and conditions then agreed upon. That the lease expired on 7.5.1995; that defendant No. 1 on the expiry of the lease on 7.5.1995 told the plaintiff that there is a likelihood of some spillover beyond 7.5.1995 for a period of about two months till 30.6.1995 and drew the attention of the plaintiff to clause 19 of the lease agreement which provided for damages of Rs. 1,000.00 - per day in case the premises are not vacated on the expiry of the lease. That the demised premises was not vacated by defendant No.l on the expiry of the lease. That during the months of May and June, 1995 an amount of Rs.88,000.00 by different cheques on account of rent/damages in terms of clause 19 of the agreement have been sent by the defendants. That defendant No. 2 company continues to be in unauthorised occupation/possession on the ground floor without any payment whatsoever since 1.7.1995 either in the form of damages @ Rs. 1,000.00 per day as provided in clause 19 of the agreement or the current market rate which is around Rs.70,000.00 per month. That defendant No. 1 did not vacate the premises on 31.6.1995 and in fact avoided speaking to the plaintiff and in July, 1995 he become incommunicado. The plaintiff sent notice dated 7.7.1995 to defendant No.2 company. That defendant No.2 company did not reply to the plaintiff's notice.

(3.) Defendant No.2 company in reply to the application contends that on 4.5.1995, the plaintiff approached the defendant company and agreed to enter into a fresh tenancy at a rate of Rs.40,000.00 per month instead of Rs.8,000.00 per month and in token of the same the plaintiff had accepted two cheques ofRs.40,000.00 each as rent for the May and June, 1995. That with the creation of a fresh tenancy it is not open to the plaintiff to contend that the premises only to be used by defendant No. 1. That even otherwise there is a provision in the lease-deed that the same can be renewed by the parties and the parties having acted on the creation of a fresh tenancy cannot back out from the same. That the question of damages @ Rs. 1,000.00 per day is concerned, the same is not applicable after the 5 times enhancement of rent from Rs.8,000.00 per month to Rs.40,000.00 per month. That the defendant is entitled to revoke doctrine of suspension of rent in view of the fact that on the night of 10/11. 9.1995, the electricity meter of the suit premises installed in the garrage being in the possession of the plaintiff was deliberately tempered and burnt by the plaintiff resulting into disconnection of electricity to the suit premises where defendant No. 1 was residing. That despite repeated requests to get electric meter repaired, the plaintiff refused to do so though the necessary electricity charges were paid by the defendant company. That the cheques sent by defendant No.2 by registered post as rent of the suit premises were refused by the plaintiff. That the lessee has performed his contractual obligations under Section 108-A (C) of the Transfer of Property Act and the plaintiff refused to supply necessary amenities. The defendant/tenant is entitled to invoke doctrine of suspension of rent.