The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the lessee to pay arrears of rent and interest, and the requirement of surrender of tenancy to end the landlord-tenant relationship.

1. The plaintiff-Smt. Veeran Devi, has filed the present suit against Mr. S. Subhash, the defendant, for recovery of possession of a portion of premises No.30, Village Hauz Khas, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs. 28,36, 025/- (Rupees twenty eight lacs thirty six thousands and twenty five only) alongwith future dues and mesne profits.

2. It is admitted by the parties that they had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 5th August, 2000, Exhibit P-1. The said document was admitted by the defendant at the time of admission/denial of documents. The Memorandum of Understanding relates to the property and stipulates that approximately 12 thousand square feet area consisting of the basement, ground floor and the first floor shall be given on lease to the defendant for a period of nine years. It was agreed that the defendant would be liable to pay 20 % of the gross sales per month for use and occupation of the property after deducting the Sale Tax liability, as rent with the minimum guarantee charges/rent of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand) per month for a period of first three years. Thereafter with effect from 1st January, 2004, the defendant was liable to pay enhanced amount of 25% of the gross sales with a minimum guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) per month. With effect from 1st January, 2007, the defendant was liable to pay 30 % of the gross sales with the minimum guarantee of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) per month. The Memorandum of Understanding is however an unregistered document.

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the defendant had deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) as a security deposit with the plaintiff. It is also an admitted case that rent @ Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lac fifty thousand) per month with effect from 1st January, 2001, onwards was paid for a period of eight months i.e. up to 31st August, 2001. For the month of September, rent was not paid. However, an amount of Rs. 72,000/-(Rupees seventy two thousand) towards TDS was deducted from the rent due for September, 2001.

4. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant stopped paying rent with effect from 1st September, 2001 and had also failed to vacate the property.

5. The defendant in the written statement has stated that the property has been in occupation and possession of the plaintiff since November, 2001 and therefore he is not liable to pay any rent and certain other pleas have also been raised.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 12th January, 2005: 1. Whether the suit premises were let out to M/s.Sebbineni Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd and not to the defendant as alleged OPD. 2. Whether the suit for possession in respect of suit property is maintainable in view of admission on behalf of the plaintiff in notice dated 9th September, 2002 of being in legal and physical possession thereof OPP. 3. Whether the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff on 1.11.2001 OPD. 4. Whether any agreement dated 1.1.2001 was executed between the husband of the plaintiff and M/s.Sibbineni Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. superseding the MOU dated 5.8.2000 If so, its effect OPD. 5. Whether the defendant had caused substantial damage to the suit property as alleged If so, is the plaintiff entitled to recover any amount on account of damages and what amount OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent as claimed If so, what amount OPP. 7. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover damages/mesne profits from the defendant If so at what rate and for what period OPP. 8. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover any interest on arrears of rent If so, at what rate and what amount OPP. 9. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of parties for non impleadment of M/s. Sebbineni Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. OPD. 10. Was the tenancy in favour of defendant legally and validly terminated If not, its effect OPP. 11. Relief.

7. Parties