Failure to comply with court orders and violation of lease agreement can lead to striking off defense and liability for arrears of rent.

1. This is an application by the Plaintiffs under Order 15A Rule 2 CPC for striking off the defence of the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant has failed to pay the arrears of rent due from December, 2011 till the date of the filing of the application, i.e., 28th September, 2012.

2. The background to the present application is that the aforementioned suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for a decree of possession of the property at CCS 106, Ground Floor and First Floor, NDSE Part-II, New Delhi-110049 (hereafter referred to as the “suit premises”) (shown in red in the site plan attached to the plaint); for a decree of recovery of rent for a sum of Rs.6,40,000; for a decree of mesne profits at Rs.2,40,000 per month with effect from 1st April, 2012 and costs.

3. The case of the Plaintiffs is that they are the owners and landlords of the suit premises. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant entered into a lease deed dated 3rd December, 2010 which is duly registered. In terms thereof the Plaintiffs as lessor granted to the Defendant-Lessee the lease of the ground floor and the first floor of the suit premises together with car parking space in the drive way with complete fittings and fixtures, along with one servants quarter with kitchen on a monthly rent of Rs.1,60,000 excluding electricity and water charges. The lease was for a period of three years commencing from 1st December, 2010 and ending on 30th November, 2012. Clause 1 of the lease deed mentions the payment schedule including the three months’ advance rent and three months’ security. Apart from a cheque dated 26th November 2010 for Rs.9,60,000 (towards three months’ advance rent and three months’ security), post-dated cheques for the period beginning from 1st March, 2011 up to 1st December, 2012 for Rs.80,000/- each were issued. Two cheques dated 1st December, 2011 for Rs.9,60,000 each were towards payment of lease rent for the period 1st December, 2012 to 30th November, 2013.

4. It is stated that when the Plaintiffs presented the two cheques dated 1 st December 2011 for payment on 2nd December, 2011 both cheques were returned dishonoured with remarks ‘Funds Insufficient’. However, on the Defendant’s further instructions the cheques were again presented for payment on 5th December, 2011, 8th December, 2011 & 10th December, 2011 and on each occasion the cheques were dishonoured with the same remarks. The Plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 8th January, 2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’) to the Defendant demanding the amount of the dishonoured cheques. However, when the Defendant failed to pay the amounts of the dishonoured cheques, the Plaintiffs filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’).

5. Separately a legal notice dated 3rd February, 2012 was issued by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant terminating the lease deed dated 3rd December, 2010 and demanding that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises be handed over to the Plaintiffs. It is stated that the Defendant failed to reply and also did not pay the lease rent of the suit premises from 1st December, 2011 till the termination of the tenancy.

6. The Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to recover Rs.6,40,000 towards monthly rent from 1st December, 2011 to 31st March, 2012. The Plaintiffs also claim mesne profits at Rs.2,40,000 per month on account of unauthorised occupation of the suit premises by the Defendant with effect from 1st April, 2012 till the time peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is handed over.

7. At the first hearing of the suit on 11th May, 2012 summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC were directed to be issued. Thereafter in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC (IA No.9765/2012) the Court, after hearing the Defendant who appeared in person, passed an order on 21st May, 2012 recording the undertaking of the Defendant