RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The defendants have applied for rejection of the plaint in these two suits by the same plaintiff against the same defendants for recovery of Rs 25 lacs in each case towards damages for breach by the defendants of a contract of permanent tenancy in favour of the plaintiff of the two separate premises in property No. 20 Community Centre, Mayapuri, New Delhi. The question which falls for consideration is, if the tenant cannot protect his possession of the premises, for the reason of alleged contract of permanent tenancy being unregistered, can the tenant maintain a suit for damages for breach of such contract.

.2. The plaintiff has instituted the suit on the pleas : a. that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of all types of conveyors, material handling systems etc; b. that the predecessor of the defendants being closely associated with the Managing Director of the plaintiff had offered to the plaintiff for the purposes of being used as a registered office the two premises i.e., the first floor and second floor of the said property for an indefinite period to be used as a permanent tenant; c. that the transferors had fixed the permanent tenancy of the plaintiff against payment of a monthly rent. In this way the transferors had envisaged an oral lease for the enjoyment of the permanent tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff company for an indefinite period against payment of a monthly rent; d. that the plaintiff on 1st April, 1997 was handed over the possession of the two premises; e. that the plaintiff after coming into possession of the premises had developed a modern office therein incurring a huge expense; f. that the defendants had sought termination of the said permanent tenancy and filed a suit for possession, recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation against the plaintiff and which suit is pending adjudication in the court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi; g. that the eviction of the plaintiff from the premises shall result in damages to the established office and the plaintiff had thus become entitled to claim the loss suffered to the tune of Rs 10 lacs from the defendants for loss of furniture, office equipment and accessories in the demise premises; h. that the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the defendants was not maintainable as the same was based on an alleged unregistered lease deed. The said document was not executed in accordance with law and had not been registered as per the provisions of the Registration Act and therefore was not receivable in evidence. Reliance was pleaded on Section 49 of the Registration Act and Sections 105 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act; i. that the defendants in an illegal manner were claiming to be the legal heirs of the transferors and had no authority from the other legal heirs and no probate or letter of administration or declaration of ownership had been sought by the defendants; j. that the plaintiff had incurred several other expenses on the premise of being a permanent tenant in the premises and all of which will be wasted; k that the plaintiff was also entitled to the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; l. that the plaintiff company is entitled to recover from the defendants an amount of Rs 25 lacs in the form of damages as an alternate relief. The said damages are being claimed by the plaintiff company from the defendants on account of illegal termination of the permanent tenancy of the transferee plaintiff company. The said damages have been claimed and quantified in accordance with common business practice prevalent in the business market;

3. The suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the defendants against the plaintiff is still pending. The correctness or not of the plaintiffs case of being a permanent tenant in the premises is still to be determined in the suit for ejectment filed by the defendants against the plaintiff. If the plea of the plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document