Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Karam Kapahi & Others
Versus
M/s. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Another
Civil Appeal No. 3048 of 2010 With Civil Appeal No. 3049 of 2010
Decided on : 07-04-2010
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 12 Rule 6, Rule 10 of Order 39 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 114 - Suit decree - Challenging the judgment and decree in the suit - They were not parties to the Suit but they may be affected by the orders passed therein - On such representation a Bench of this Court by an order permitted them to file a special leave petition and also issued notice and stayed further proceedings for the execution of the judgment and decree of the High Court - Held, Club was not facing threat of eviction from anybody excepting the Trust and there is no question of a superior landlord - In the instant case prima facie applies and the Club is prima facie stopped from challenging the title of the Trust - It is clear that the Club was very negligent in pursuing its case - Its case was dismissed on several occasions - Club also adopted dilatory tactics in prolonging the litigation - Even after losing the appeal before the High Court, the Club, through its members initiated several proceedings to stall the execution of the decree and in those proceedings the High Court held that with knowledge of the Club those proceedings by the members were initiated - Even while filing the Special Leave Petition before this Court, initially the members of Club came with the usual plea of not being aware of the eviction proceeding against the Club as they were not parties to the same - In the backdrop of these facts one thing is clear that the conduct of the Club is such as to disentitle it to any discretionary remedy - Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a dispute over a lease agreement, with the Trust asserting ownership and the Club challenging the title and non-payment of rent. The Trust filed a suit for possession and damages due to default in rent payments by the Club (!) (!) .
The Club admitted to executing the lease and sub-lease agreements but disputed the Trust's ownership rights over the property (!) (!) .
The Trust issued multiple notices demanding rent and ultimately terminated the lease due to non-payment. The Club acknowledged receipt of notices but failed to pay the arrears (!) (!) (!) .
The Club filed multiple suits and applications challenging the Trust’s rights, with some proceedings being dismissed for default or on merits. The Court observed dilatory tactics and negligence on the part of the Club (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court held that the Club's conduct, including its inconsistent pleas and delay tactics, disqualifies it from equitable relief and discretionary remedies (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the principles of speedy judgment and the doctrine of admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 are applicable, given the clear admissions made by the Club regarding non-payment and acknowledgment of the Trust’s ownership (!) (!) (!) .
The Court found that the Club, having taken inconsistent positions—denying the Trust’s title while seeking relief under the same lease—has engaged in approbation and reprobation, which is legally impermissible (!) (!) .
The application of the doctrine of election and principles of estoppel under applicable laws support the conclusion that the Club cannot challenge the Trust’s ownership rights after admitting to the lease and defaulting on rent payments (!) (!) .
The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the lower court’s judgment, and noted that the Club’s conduct and procedural tactics justify denial of discretionary relief under constitutional provisions (!) (!) .
The Court imposed costs on the Club for dilatory tactics and upheld the judgment of the High Court, reinforcing that the jurisdiction under Article 136 is exercised with caution and only in appropriate cases (!) (!) .
Overall, the Court concluded that the conduct of the Club, including neglect, delays, and inconsistent pleas, disqualifies it from equitable relief and discretionary remedies, leading to the dismissal of the appeals (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
Judgment
Ganguly, J.
Leave granted in both the petitions, being SLP(C) No. 9080/2009 filed by Karam Kapahi and three others and SLP(C) No. 9091 of 2009 filed by M/s South Delhi Club Ltd.
2. Both the appeals impugn the judgment and order dated 9.1.2009 passed by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in RFA (OS) No. 34/2002.
3. In the appeal filed by Karam Kapahi, Sujit Madaan, Anup Malik and Neeraj Girotra, it is asserted that as members of the M/s South Delhi Club Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Club') they are directly affected by the judgment and decree passed in Suit (Suit No. 518 of 1999) filed by the respondent Trust. Challenging the judgment and decree in the suit, Appeal RFA (OS) No. 34 of 2002 was filed by the Club. Their main contention in the SLP is that they were not parties to the Suit but they may be affected by the orders passed therein. On such representation a Bench of this Court by an order dated 9.4.2009 permitted them to file a special leave petition and also issued notice and stayed further proceedings for the execution of the judgment and decree of the High Court.
4. About a fortnight thereafter, the Club filed another Special leave petition (C) No. 9091/2009 challenging the same judgment of the Appellate Bench of the High Court and a Bench of this Court on 24.4.2009 in view of the previous notice already against the same judgment issued notice in that special leave petition filed by the Club and directed it to be tagged with the earlier special leave petition (C) No. 9080/2009 filed by the members. Both the matters were heard together in view of common questions of fact and law in these matters.
5. The material facts are as under.
6. Respondent No. 1 – M/s Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Anr., a registered charitable trust (hereinafter, 'the Trust') was the lessor and the Club was the lessee. On or about 16.12.1998 the Trust and some of its members filed a Suit, being Suit No. 518/1999, before the Delhi High Court against the Club in view of termination of club's lease for non-payment of lease rent by the Club. The suit was for possession in respect of its land and building situated at Central Park, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi and also for recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,60,000/- as damages and mesne profit and also for future damages.
7. In the said plaint the stand of the plaintiff-trust was that by a sub-lease dated 4.11.1965 property in question (fully described in the plan attached to the plaint) was leased to the Club for 25 years. Thereafter, Supplementary deed of Sub-lease dated 25.7.1979 was also executed between the parties and the same was duly registered. As the supplementary lease dated 25.7.1979 expired on 3.11.1990, the Club requested the Trust for a further renewal and further renewal was given for a period of 35 years from 4.11.1990 on the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Agreement and the said lease was also duly registered.
8. In terms of the sub-lease, the Club undertook to pay quarterly to the Trust on account of monthly lease rent by the 10th of the beginning of each quarter month, and a sum equivalent to 14% of the monthly subscription paid or payable by the members of the Club. It is also averred in the plaint that it is agreed between the parties that in case of default in payment of lease rent for two consecutive quarters, the Trust will be entitled to terminate the said sub-lease.
9. The case of the respondent-Trust is that the Club defaulted in payment of rent and before the filing of the Suit the Trust issued several letters dated 25.12.1996, 14.1.1997 and 18.6.1997 calling upon the Club to pay the rent but as the Club failed to pay the amount, the respondent-Trust served a legal notice dated 25.7.1997, again calling upon the Club to pay the entire lease rent failing which, it was made clear, that the Trust will take legal action. The exact averment in the plaint is as follows:
"...thus compelling the plaintiff to serve a legal notice dated 25.7.1997 and b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
