Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 1005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SPARSH BUILDERS PVT. LTD. – Plaintiff
versus
MAHARISHI AYURVEDA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. – Defendant
CS(OS) 84/2009
Decision on: September 16, 2009
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocates.
Mr. M.L. Bhargava with Mr. Manoj Swarup, Ms.Lalita Kohli, Mr. K.M. Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that admissions must be clear and unambiguous, and the burden of proof lies with the party denying the contents of registered documents. The significance of registered documents and the rule of best evidence under the Evidence Act were also emphasized.
Headnote:
Admissions - Ownership and Possession - Delhi Stamp Act, 2008, Section 17 - Transfer of Property Act, Section 53-A - Evidence Act, Sections 91 and 92 - Decree on Admissions - Possession and Damages Decreed - Costs Decreed
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession, recovery of damages, and permanent injunction against the Defendant, claiming to be the absolute and exclusive owner of a property. The Defendant, in its written statement, maintained that the documents executed were for securing a loan of Rs. 4 crores advanced by the Plaintiff at an exorbitant interest rate of 3.5% per month. The Plaintiff sought a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Defendant's denial of the contents of registered documents, while admitting the signatures, was untenable. The Court held that the Plaintiff's ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship were admitted by the Defendant's own documents and admissions. The Court decreed possession in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded damages for use and occupation charges. The Court also decreed costs in favor of the Plaintiff.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership of the property, the nature of the documents executed, and the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the Defendant's admissions must be clear and unambiguous, and that the burden was on the Defendant to show contemporaneous evidence reflecting a different intention from that stated in the documents. The Court also highlighted the significance of registered documents and the rule of best evidence under the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The Court decreed possession in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded damages for use and occupation charges. The Court also decreed costs in favor of the Plaintiff.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This is a suit for possession, recovery of damages and permanent injunction. At the stage of framing of issues, the parties have been heard on whether any triable issue arises and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Plaintiff’s Case
2. The Plaintiff, Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd., states that it is the absolute and exclusive owner of the entire property at A-14, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, admeasuring 4617.67 sq.yds. (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property’). It states that it purchased the suit property from the Defendant, Maharishi Ayurvedic Products Pvt. Ltd., on payment of full and final sale consideration of Rs. 4 crores accompanied by transfer of symbolic possession. Along with the registered Agreement to Sell dated 30th December 2004 (affixing requisite stamp duty of Rs.30 lakhs), a registered Power of Attorney, registered Will, registered indemnity bond etc., were executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff on 30th December 2004.
3. It is stated that at the time of the sale transaction, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff that it would take the property on rent for a period of three years. Accordingly, a separate lease deed dated 30th December 2004 with effect from 1st January 2005 fixing the monthly rent for the said suit property at Rs.14,25,000/- was executed. The Defendant deposited a sum of Rs.42,75,000/- as interest free security, refundable within thirty days of the vacation of the suit property in terms of the lease agreement. Simultaneously a separate memorandum of understanding (MoU) was also entered on 30th December 2004 whereby the Defendant was given option of buying back the suit property on a consideration to be mutually agreed upon between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
4. The Plaintiff states that on the expiry of the aforesaid lease period of three years, the Defendant further requested the Plaintiff to extend its occupation by another period of 11 months representing that it was still unable to find alternative premises to shift. Accordingly, a fresh MoU dated 1st January 2008 was entered into. A fresh lease agreement of the same date was also executed. The MoU gave the Defendant an option of buying back the suit property on a consideration to be mutually agreed upon between the parties. It was stated in the lease agreement that the lease was not extendable beyond a period of 11 months and that no extension would be allowed under any circumstances. The increased monthly rent was Rs.18,50,000/- besides service tax or any other tax that may be applicable during the period of 11 months commencing from 1st January 2008 and ending on 30th November 2008. Clause 15 of the lease deed stipulated that the lessee would, on the expiry of the lease period, hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff lessor in its original condition. It was stated in para 16 that in the event of the Defendant lessee failing to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff lessor after the expiry of the period of 11 months, i.e., on 30th November 2008, “the lessee shall be liable to pay rent as well as damages of Rs.50,000/- per day to the lessor for non-compliance of the terms and conditions of this lease agreement. The damages of Rs.50,000/- per day will be applicable after a grace period of seven days, i.e., with effect from 8th December 2008. That this grace period with damages shall be available to the lessee for a maximum period of 30 days after which the aid premises shall have to be vacated under all circumstances”. It was again reiterated towards the end of Clause 16 that: “It is hereby made clear that the tenure of this lease for all purposes is 11 months commencing from 1st January 2008 and ending on 30th November 2008. The 30 days as mentioned hereinabove are just grace period”.
5. Prior to the lease perio
