( 1 ) IN this application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the plaintiff has prayed that defendants may be directed to pay arrears of rent/occupation charges in future.

( 2 ) THE case set up by the plaintiff is that the defendants are the joint tenants of the plaintiffs of the property bearing No N-6, N. D. S. E. Part I, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000. 00. Defendant No. 1 used to pay rent to plaintiffs 1 and 2 his half share, i. e , Rs. 20,000. 00. Defendant No. 2 used to pay his second half share ot Rs. 20,000. 00 to plaintiffs 3 and 4 per month. The defendants used to pay rent in advance by the 10th day of each calendar month as agreed upon. Defendant No. 1had paid the rents to the plaintiffs No 1 and 2 for the period ending 5th May, 1990 and she is in arrears of Rs. 60,000. 00 toward the rents for the period ending 5th August, 1990. Similarly, defendant No. 2 has pot paid the rents after 6th June, 1990 and he is in arrears of Rs. 40,000. 00 by way of rent for the period ending 5th August, 1990. Thus, the defendants are in total arrears of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 by way of rents to the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS have not paid the aforementioned amount of rent to the plaintiffs in spite of repeated requests although they have no right to withhold the same and remain in occupation of the premises. The plaintiffs have terminated the tenancy of the defendants and have filed the present suit (Suit No. 2883 of 1990) for possession and recovery of Rs, 1,00,000. 00 as arreas of rent and for permanent injunction.

( 4 ) NOTICE of this l. A. was issued to the defendant. The defendants have chosen not to file their replies and have argued the matter, without reply. However, they have filed written statement in the main suit and during the course of arguments they relied upon the written statement.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS have not contested the agreed rate of rent as Rs. 40,000. 00 per month, as per lease deed. However, they , have justified the suspension of the payment of the rent on the ground that in terms of the lease and supplementary lease, the plaintiff was under obligation to get the plans sanctioned for additions and alterations of the premises and the plaintiff arbitrarily withdrew the application for sanction of additions and alterations thus, resulting in putting hindrance to the beneficial enjoyment of the property by the defendants. They have further opposed the application on the ground that the lessor has leased the premises for residence cum- commercial purposes though ordinarily a lease would have provided for residential purposes. The annual rateable value of the property, keeping in view the Delhi Rent Control, Act was fixed at Rs. 15,150. 00 per annum or Rs. 1,262. 50 pm. This continues till today. Even if the rent at first letting is taken, the same would be well below Rs. 3. 500. 00 p. m. and, therefore, the property continues to be covered by the Rent Act, Further certain comprehensive rights as mentioned in the lease deed were given to the defendants including right to gel the permises of the previous tenant vacated. In case. such comprehensive rights were not given, the rent would have been more" than Rs. 2,500. 00 p. m.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute between the partics that the lease deed requires registration and that the present lease deed dated 6. 8. 1988 has not been, registered although the defendants have put blame on the plantiffs that they are avoiding the registration of the lease dreed.

( 7 ) MR. Arun Mohan, counsel for the defendants, has strenuously contended that the rent of Rs. 40,000. 00 p. m. cannot be paid to the plaintiff as vide lease deed entered into comprehensive rights were given to the defendants; that the plaintiffs. have leased the premises for residence cumcommercial purposes and that defendants were authorised to carry out structural additions or. alterations in the premises and these were to be applied in the name of the plaintiffs and the pl