MASYC PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD Vs. RAJIV RAI SACHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The defendants have applied for rejection of the plaint in these two suits by the same plaintiff against the same defendants for recovery of Rs 25 lacs in each case towards damages for breach by the defendants of a contract of permanent tenancy in favour of the plaintiff of the two separate premises in property No. 20 Community Centre, Mayapuri, New Delhi. The question which falls for consideration is, if the tenant cannot protect his possession of the premises, for the reason of alleged contract of permanent tenancy being unregistered, can the tenant maintain a suit for damages for breach of such contract.

(2.) THE plaintiff has instituted the suit on the pleas :

(3.) THE suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the defendants against the plaintiff is still pending. The correctness or not of the plaintiff"s case of being a permanent tenant in the premises is still to be determined in the suit for ejectment filed by the defendants against the plaintiff. If the plea of the plaintiff of being a permanent tenant or of the defendants being not the owner/landlord or not being the only landlords or of section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act, is to be believed and upheld the question of ejectment does not arise on mere termination. The question of breach of contract by the defendants and resultant damages to the plaintiff shall arise only when the plaintiff is ejected from the premises. I find the suit to be premature and liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is not as if the plaintiff has unequivocally admitted that it is liable to be ejected. The plaintiff is contesting the claim of the defendants for its ejectment. The cause of action, if any, to the plaintiff would accrue only when the plaintiff is ejected from the premise and not prior thereto. If the defence of the plaintiff herein, in the suit for ejectment succeeds and the suit for ejecment is dismissed, the question of plaintiff suffering any damages as claimed in this suit does not arise. The plaintiff herein would then only be entitled to costs from the defendants herein and that too by judgment/order in that suit and not by this suit. I therefore find the plaint to be not disclosing any cause of action and liable to be rejected on this ground alone.