VIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. COGENT EMR AOLUTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek a decree for possession against the defendant in respect of the suit premises bearing No. E-41/4, block E, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi which is shown in red colour in the site plan Exhibit P-1, consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor admeasuring about 12000 Sq. Ft of covered area.

(2.) THE admitted position is that the plaintiff is the landlord and he inducted the defendant as a tenant in the suit premises aforesaid under lease deed dated 26. 12. 2006 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,95,000/- commencing from 01. 01. 2007. The term of the lease was seven years. The said lease deed, exhibit P-2 was registered vide registration No. 17574 in Book No. 1, Volume no. 6,877 on pages 104 to 115, on 27. 12. 2006 in the office of the sub-Registrar-V, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the defendant did not make payment of rent for the months of May, June and july, 2008. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 08. 07. 2008 determining the lease w. e. f. 31. 07. 2008, and calling upon the defendant to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff also states that since 01. 08. 2008, the defendant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises.

(3.) UPON issuance of summons in the suit, the defendant has filed its written statement. The defendant, apart from meeting the averments on the plaint raised a few preliminary objections. The first preliminary objection raised was that the suit is barred under Section 10 CPC. This objection is premised on the fact that the plaintiff had already preferred Suit No. 400/2008 titled as "virender Kumar v. Cogent EMR Solutions Limited" which was, at the time of filing of the written statement, pending before the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi. It was contended that the issues involved in both the suits are primarily concerning validity of the termination of the lease deed. The second preliminary objection raised was that the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as the plaintiff had omitted to seek the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property in the previously instituted suit for recovery of rent and mesne profits, as aforesaid. It was stated that the cause of action pleaded in both the suits are, the same namely the alleged non-payment of rent and the issuance of the legal notice dated 08. 07. 2008. So fair as these two preliminary objections are concerned, they raise no issue of fact as there is no dispute about the facts on which they are founded. These issues are purely legal and I have heard the parties at length and would presently dispose them off.