The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a landlord to recover arrears of rent, interest, and damages for use and occupation from a tenant, as well as the liability for damages to the premises.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

.1. The plaintiff as landlord of a farmhouse bearing municipal No. M-66-67, Village Jonapur, New Delhi instituted the present suit (i) for ejectment of the defendant No.1 tenant therefrom after the cessation of its tenancy and (ii) for recovery of arrears of rent from April, 2003 to 30th September, 2003 of Rs.6 lac together with interest at 12% per annum accrued thereon till the date of institution of the suit of Rs.63,000/-, (iii) for recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation from 1st October, 2003 till institution of the suit in May, 2004 of Rs.45 lac, (iv) for interest of Rs.1,08,404/- on delayed payment of earlier rents and (v) for future mesne profits/damages for use and occupation, The plaintiff besides the defendant No.1 company also impleaded its Chairman and Managing Director in such capacity as the defendant No.2. The defendants immediately on service of summons of the suit moved I.A.4395/2004 offering to deliver possession of the premises to the plaintiff without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The said application came up before this court on 20th July, 2004 The counsel for the plaintiff sought six weeks time to obtain instructions and the matter was adjourned to 28th September, 2004 On 28th September, 2004 on

.the request of the plaintiff a commissioner was appointed for delivery of possession of the premises by the defendants to the plaintiff and to inspect the premises and to make a report about the physical condition thereof. The commissioner visited the premises on 31st October, 2004 on which date the possession of the premises was delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff. The commissioner also took photographs of the premises which have been filed with his report, of the physical condition of the premises.

2. The plaintiff thereafter applied for amendment of the plaint to incorporate therein the claim for damages caused by the defendants to the premises. The said application was allowed on 12th January, 2006 and the plaintiff filed an amended plaint. The suit was thereafter dismissed for non prosecution but was restored. The plaintiff filed the amended plaint. Though the defendants had filed written statement to the plaint as originally filed but failed to file the written statement to the amended plaint and also stopped appearing in the suit and were vide order dated 22nd May, 2007 ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and remain ex-parte. The plaintiff has led its ex parte evidence by filing the affidavit by way of examination in chief of its Director Mr. S.V. Joshi.

3. As aforesaid, the relief of possession does not survive. The monetary claims of the plaintiff against the defendants are for consideration.

.4. At the outset, it may be stated that though there are two defendants but it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 was its tenant in the premises and the defendant No.2 had occupied the said premises from inception of tenancy till vacation in his capacity as the Managing Director of the defendant No.1 company. The monetary claims of the plaintiff arises from such contract of tenancy. The contract of tenancy having been made out with the defendant No.1 company, the liability for such monetary claims is of the defendant No.1 company only and the defendant No.2 merely for the reason of being the Managing Director of the defendant No.1 would not become personally liable for the dues of the defendant No.1 company. No case of the defendant No.2 having personally assured payments by the defendant No.1 under the contract has been made out. The suit against the defendant No.2 in his capacity as the Managing Director of the defendant No.1 company, specially when it is expressly stated in the plaint that the defendant No.2 was residing in the premises in his capacity as a Managing Director of the defendant No.1, is misconceived and contrary to the concept

.of limited liability. Thus the entitlement, if any, of the plaintiff to the monetary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document