Inconsistency with the record can lead to rejection of counterclaims and proposed amendments.

1. The Plaintiff, Mr. Ved Vrat Sharma, has filed the present suit against the Defendant, Auto Needs (I) Private Limited, seeking possession of the industrial plot bearing No. 507, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi – 110 092 (‘the suit property’) including the basement admeasuring 2500 sq. ft and ground floor admeasuring 2300 sq. ft, as shown in red colour in the site plan. He has further sought a decree in the sum of Rs.11,79,780/- as arrears of rent and service tax thereon from 1st September 2008 to 31st March 2009, pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum and a decree in the sum of Rs.3,30,900/- as damages/mesne profits for the month of April 2009, pendente lite interest and future damages including service tax on Rs.3,30,900/-from the date of filing of the suit till such date that the Defendant vacates and hands over the peaceful possession of the suit property, and a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant, their directors, agents, servants or any one acting for and on their behalf from sub-letting, assigning or parting with possession of the suit property in favour of the third party and to award costs.

2. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit property which is an immovable property that is freehold, including the building constructed thereon, by virtue of conveyance deed dated 25th January 2007 executed in his favour by the President of India. The Defendant is the licensee of the built up portion on the basement of the suit property. The Plaintiff states that the suit property was given on licence to the Defendnat by an agreement of leave and licence dated 9th April 2008 for a period of three years with effect from 1st July 2007 on a monthly licence fee of Rs.1,50,000/- payable on or before the seventh day of each month by cheque, after deduction of tax at source. The Defendant was also liable to pay service tax as applicable. The Defendant has paid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- by way of interest free security deposit which is refundable upon the Defendant to vacate the suit property, after adjustment of all dues towards rent, service tax etc.

3. The Plaintiff states that the suit property was given to the Defendant for industrial purposes, i.e., to run and operate a workshop and servicing of motor cycles under the supervision of Hero Honda Motors Limited. However, it was stipulated in the agreement that the Defendant was to comply with the rules and regulations of the local authorities with regard to the premises. Either party could terminate the agreement by giving three months’ notice in writing to the other to vacate the premises. It was further stipulated that if the Government or the authorities prohibited the Defendant from carrying on its operation from the suit premises, the Plaintiff could issue a termination notice.

4. The Plaintiff states that by an order dated 17th April 2008 the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (‘DPCC’) declared the Defendant’s workshop at the suit property as a polluting unit and directed the Defendant to stop all operations from the unit with immediate effect. The Defendant was irregular in the payment of licence fee and has stopped the payment of licence fee altogether with effect from 1st September 2008. It is further stated that the Defendant has not bothered to pay to the Plaintiff despite repeated requests and reminders. A legal notice dated 19th December 2008 was issued by the Plaintiff through his Advocate calling upon the Defendant to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff by 31st January 2009. The Defendant was also called upon to pay arrears of licence fee with effect from 1st September 2008. Apprehending that the Defendant was attempting to sublet, assign and or part with possession of the suit property in favour of the third party, the present suit was filed seeking the reliefs as mentioned hereinbefore.

5. Summons in the suit and notice on the application, IA No. 6846 of 2009, u