BALA RANI Vs. MGF DEVELOPMENTS LTD & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Bala Rani to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 14.11.2017 of learned Addl. District Judge whereby her application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed. The appeal is contested by the respondents.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. It is not in dispute that the suit premises was handed over by respondents No.1 & 2 (hereinafter 'respondents') to the appellant by a licence agreement dated 22.01.2011 for running a hair saloon under the brand name of "Habibs" or any other national reputed brand on a monthly licence fee of Rs.80,017/-. This agreement was executed by the respondents as Sub licencors under respondent No.3 i.e. The Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd. by virtue of an agreement dated 02.09.2004 (Annexure I, Page-165). By this agreement dated 02.09.2004 between the respondents and respondent No.3, a concession agreement was executed to develop, finance, construct, commission, operate, manage and maintain the project and licence the use of the built-up spaces and facilities during the period of the agreement. The 'termination date' as agreed to in the said concession agreement was 'end of the concession period of 12 years from the commencement date or date of sooner determination of the concession period in accordance with the terms of this agreement whichever is earlier'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the suit premises was let out by the respondents being agent of respondent No.3 to the appellant for a period of 9 calendar years (3+3+3). At the time of taking the premises on rent, the appellant had apprised the respondents that her business in the suit premises would require investment of huge amount of money and the gestation period would be 5 - 7 years. With that understanding and considering the nature of the business, the respondents granted occupancy rights / lease / licence for holding and enjoying the suit premises for a period of 9 years without any unlawful interruption for running the business of hair saloon; the appellant was permitted to carry out interior works for the smooth functioning of the business. She was also granted the right of renewal of the lease deed beyond the period of 9 years on enhancement of security deposits by 15% over the existing one. It was further urged that at the time of execution of the agreement dated 22.01.2011 the respondents did not reserve any right to get the suit premises vacated before 9 years. The intention of the parties was that 'lease' was in perpetuity on renewal basis. Acting on the representation of the respondents, the appellant had invested a sum of Rs.15 lacs - Rs.20 lacs in raising permanent structure in the suit premises. The appellant has since complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The respondents, however, vide letter dated 22.06.2017 informed her to vacate the suit premises as the agreement dated 02.09.2004 executed with respondent No.3 for development of project and management of commercial facilities in the area had expired by efflux of time. The appellant was never apprised about the terms and conditions of the said agreement dated 02.09.2004 and a fraud was played upon the appellant by the respondents. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong to approbate and reprobate. The respondents have no right to get the suit premises vacated before the expiry of lease period valid up to 21.01.2020. Reliance has been placed on 'Jagdish Chander Khurana & Anr. Vs. Ghanshyam Dass, 2010 172 DLT 681' and 'Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs. Vs. Mrs.Shobha Venkat Rao, 1989 AIR(SC) 2097'.