MANGAL SAIN MITTAL Vs. PPA IMPEX LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the plaintiff's applications for decree on admission (IA 3384/2008) and under Order XXX3x Rules 1 and 2, Civil procedure Code (CPC), being IA 3385/2008.

(2.) THE plaintiff claims to be owner of suit property, i. e S-6, Green Park extension. It was let out, though four separate registered lease deeds dated 6-6-2002, covering four portions of the suit property. The property was sold, through a registered sale deed, to Mrs. Raj Rani Sethi, on 7-6-2002; the plaintiff contends having entered into an agreement to purchase the property from Mrs. Sethi, on 27-9-2002, for a consideration of Rs. 49,05,000/ -. It is submitted that the said vendor delivered IA Nos. 3384 and 3385/2008 in cs (OS) 909/2007 Page 2 constructive possession of the premises to the plaintiff, on 1-9-2002; it is alleged that a letter of attornment was sent to the defendant company, inspite of which the latter did not pay the arrears of rent, or pay any lease rent, as agreed, to the plaintiff. The premises, contends the plaintiff, were leased through separate lease deeds, but in the same terms, for the same tenure; though they concerned separate portions, they formed a composite tenancy. According to the plaintiff, the total monthly rent payable was Rs. 2,16,000/ -. It is contended that in terms of the lease deed, the defendant's lease was to end on 31-12-2004; they could, however, continue in the premises on payment of enhanced rent. It is submitted that the defendant continued in the premises for a further period of 27 1/2 months, without existence of a valid lease deed, since the lease period was never extended.

(3.) THE plaintiff submits that the defendant has fallen in arrears of rent from 1-9- 2002 and that after execution of the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiff, and handing over constructive possession, as well as the execution of sale deed in its favour on 29-12-2006, it became full owner of the premises, entitled to claim all rights in relation to it. The plaintiff alleges having served a notice dated 8-4-2005 to the defendant asking it to vacate the premises, for default in paying rent, besides damages. It also claims having served a notice dated 19-1-2007, and followed it up with a reminder dated 1-2-2007, repeating the demand for vacation of the premises, after the sale Deed was executed in its favour. The plaintiff, therefore, claims a decree for possession and damages. The plaintiff, in the application, alleges that the defendant's written statement has admitted the service of notice (asking it to vacate the premises), and has not raised any substantial defence, but has instead, set up a false case that it was intending to purchase the suit property, and therefore, could not be evicted. There is, according to the plaintiff, no worthwhile defence to the claim for possession, and the court should, in the interests of justice, decree that relief.