NIKHIL NAGPAL Vs. PRATIBHA SHARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for preponement of the main case, which is now stated to be fixed for 15/1/2021, is allowed. The main case is preponed from 15/1/2021 to today itself. CM stands disposed of. CR-877-2020 (O&M)

(2.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 is to the order dtd. 18/10/2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby the application filed by respondents No.1 & 2 under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC has been allowed. Resultantly, the petitioner has been directed to pay the lease money at the monthly rate of Rs.50,000.00 for the first year, Rs.75,000.00 for the second year and Rs.1,00,000.00 for the third year, after adjusting the amount of Rs.1,82,586.00, before 18/12/2019, failing which, his defence was to be struck off. He was further directed to regularly deposit the monthly rent throughout continuation of the suit within a week of its accrual, with the same consequential condition. Challenge has also been raised to the subsequent order dtd. 18/12/2019 (Annexure P-2) whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off on account of non-payment and the case was fixed for arguments.

(3.) The Civil Court (Jr.Divn.) Panipat had vide the first order, directed the payment after coming to the conclusion that here was no dispute regarding the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property since they were owners as per sale deed dtd. 15/2/2008. The execution of the rent revenue agreement dtd. 29/4/2016 (Annexure P-3) whereby the property was given on lease was also kept in mind along with the statement recorded of defendant No.2, Dr.Jitender Sharma that he had no objection if the outstanding amount was paid to the plaintiffs. It was the claim of the petitioner that the said agreement was a lease for 5 years and would have to be compulsorily registered under Sec. 17(1)(d) of the Registration At, 1908. The said claim was rejected as the plaintiffs had specifically mentioned that minimum rent was payable irrespective of any income/profits by holding that the averments were denied evasively and such denials were no better than admissions although their effect was to be seen after conclusion of the trial. A finding was recorded that prima facie minimum rent was indeed payable though the petitioner had claimed that he had derived no income since January, 2017.