TORQUE BIKES (P) LTD Vs. HARSHA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant/tenant impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.1.2018 by which the Trial Court has decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord against the appellant/defendant/tenant, so far as the relief of possession is concerned, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

(2.) Right at the outset, I must note that the present appellant/defendant/tenant is a tenant who is indeed a truant tenant. This I say so because the defence of the appellant/defendant struck off on account of non-payment of rent. The contention for non-payment and suspension of rent by the appellant/defendant/tenant was that there was damage to the tenanted premises as a result of falling down of the roof and consequently the appellant/defendant/tenant has claimed suspension of rent. While this Court was sitting in the FAO Roster, this very same aspect came up before this Court and this Court by a detailed judgment dated 24.5.2017 rejected the self-same contention of the appellant/defendant/tenant, which is being urged today to claim entitlement to suspension of 50% of the rent. This judgment dated 24.5.2017 in the case of Torque Bikes Private Ltd. vs. Harsha Gupta, (2017) 5 AD(Del) 192 reads as under:-

(3.) In the present case it is undisputed that appellant/defendant became a tenant of the respondent/landlord/plaintiff in terms of the lease deed dated 26.5.2015. The total area let out was an area of 4500 sq. feet. The area which has been let out is situated in part of the property bearing Municipal No. 30, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. Appellant/defendant under this lease deed admittedly entered upon the suit premises as a tenant and started using the same. The appellant/defendant, however, failed to pay the rent with effect from 1st March, 2016. The subject suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages was hence filed by the respondent/plaintiff by terminating the tenancy by notice dated 15.4.2016 on account of non-payment of admitted rent by the appellant/defendant. It is in this subject suit that the subject application for payment of pendente lite rent was filed and which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 27.10.2016 and which order reads as under:-