SANATANA DHARAM WORLD UNIVERSTITY TRUST Vs. M MUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of property no. 20, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi comprising basement and four floors let out to the defendant vide a rent agreement dated 4th September, 2004 at monthly rent of Rs. 2 lakhs plus electricity and water charges. The suit premises was let out for running a restaurant/hotel/banquet hall/guest house. Although, the rent agreement mentioned that the letting was initially for a period of 5 years and was renewable further but the rent agreement was not a registered lease deed between the parties and therefore could not be considered as a valid document and cannot be looked into except for collateral purpose. The rent deed between the parties, in order to be considered as a valid document was also required to bear proper stamp duty since it sought to create an interest in the property for a period of more than one year. The rent deed does not bear the stamp duty as per law. Thus, the lease between the parties in respect of property had to be considered as a month to month lease.

(2.) THE defendant had given an advance rent of Rs. 12 lakhs to the plaintiff at the time of creation of tenancy as security. This was adjustable on vacation of the premises. The plaintiff stated in the suit that defendant paid rent upto 28th February, 2006 and thereafter defaulted in making the payment and continued to occupy the premises. The defendant despite notice for payment of rent failed to clear the arrears of rent and also failed to make the current payment of rent. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 15th January, 2007 on defendant terminating the tenancy with effect from 20th February, 2007. After service of this notice, defendant paid part of the arrears of rent and gave a draft of Rs. 20 lakhs to the plaintiff and assured the plaintiff that he would be handing over the keys of the premises and shall hand over the physical possession of the premises shortly. However, when the plaintiffs went to collect the keys on appointed day, the defendant did not hand over the keys and did not hand over the possession. The plaintiff again served another legal notice dated 10th May, 2007 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31st May, 2007 and thereafter filed the suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs.

(3.) DURING pendency of the suit, on 27th August, 2008 counsel for the defendant informed the Court that a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs would be paid to the plaintiff within 4 weeks towards arrears of rent. This amount was not paid. On 16th october, 2008, this Court again directed the defendant to comply with the order dated 27th August, 2008 for payment of Rs. 20 lakhs and also directed to give a statement of amounts paid and due to the plaintiff. A cheque of Rs. 4 lakhs was received by the plaintiff towards rent of August and September, 2008 from the defendant no. 1. Thereafter, again no rent was paid. However, on 20th July, 2009, counsel for the defendant no. 1 gave undertaking to the Court to clear the entire arrears of rent on next date of hearing in the Court, i. e. , on 8th october, 2009. Today again the defendant's counsel expressed inability of the defendant to clear the arrears of rent. The total rent which had become due against the defendant in terms of agreement amounts to Rs. 58 lakhs. In view of the fact that the defendant had given an undertaking to the Court to clear the arrears and despite undertaking had not paid the arrears of rent, the defence of the defendant was struck off.