SAI MOTORS Vs. ADITYA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assails the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.12, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit No.9692/16 whereunder a decree for possession in respect of suit property comprising of half portion of the Ground Floor and the entire mezzanine floor of property No.2704, Lothian Road, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi ( suit property for short) has been passed in favour of the respondent nos.1 and 2.

(2.) Shri Virender Kumar Jain, respondent no.4 who was the owner of the suit property executed a lease deed dated 01.08.2007 in favour of his daughter and two sons, i.e., respondent nos.1 to 3 which lease deed created a right in their favour to sub-lease the property. Pursuant to the said lease deed, the respondent nos.1 to 3 sub-leased the suit property to the appellant no.1 vide lease deed dated 24.07.2009 for a total period of 11 months. As per the said deed, the respondent nos.1 to 3 were to be paid a monthly sum of Rs.35,000/- as rent. The said lease deed was extended from time to time and the last extension of the lease was granted in 10.04.2012 for a period of 11 months whereunder the appellants were liable to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000/- which was to be equally apportioned between the three lessors, i.e., respondent nos.1 to 3. As the aforementioned deed dated 10.04.2012 was set to expire on 31.03.2013, a legal notice was issued by the respondent nos.1 to 3 to the appellants on the same date requiring it to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to them on or before 01.04.2013. The said legal notice also stated that, even otherwise, in the light of the appellants failure to pay any rent from 01.11.2012 for their continued occupation of the suit property, they were in default of Clause 9 of the lease deed. Although the appellants never replied to the said legal notice, on 18.04.2013 they sent their reply to the legal notice dated 28.03.2013 issued by the respondent no.4, in respect of the other half portion of the Ground Floor of the suit property which had also been let out to them by way of a separate lease deed executed by the respondent no.4. In their reply, the appellants stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in a suit for partition preferred by respondent no.4 being CS(OS) No.185/2010 ( partition suit for short), the respondent no.4 was no longer the owner of the suit property which had fallen to the share of his four brothers namely, Shri Ravinder Kumar Jain, Narain Bhiku Ram, Arvind Jain and Adarsh Jain.

(3.) In October 2015, as the appellants had neither paid any rent after 01.11.2012 nor did they hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent nos.1 to 3, the respondent no.3 instituted a suit being CS No.152/2016 (New Number: CS No.15352/2016) for possession and mesne profits whereunder she made a claim qua the arrears of rent and mesne profits accruing on her share of the suit property. In her plaint, though the respondent no.3 made a reference to the fact that her two brothers were also co-lessors of the suit property along with her, she did not implead them as parties in the suit. During the pendency of her suit, the subject suit seeking possession and mesne profits came to be instituted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 against the appellant no.1 and its partner, i.e., appellant no.2 wherein they also impleaded their sister/respondent no. 3 and their father, Sh. Virender Kumar Jain/respondent no.4as defendants