Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
NIRMAL GUPTA & ORS. - Plaintiffs
Versus
M/S GANTON INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. - Defendants
I.A. No. 4335/2013 (O.XII R.6 CPC) in CS(OS) 3131/2012
Decided on : 22nd October, 2013
Mr. R.S. Chauhan and Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocates.
Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Gaurav Chandhok and Ms. Samreen, Advocates for Defendant No. 2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of clear and unambiguous admissions in influencing the court's decision, along with the application of relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Admissions - Landlord and Tenant - Delhi Rent Control Act - Transfer of Property Act - [Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, Delhi Rent Control Act] - The court discussed the admissions made by the defendant regarding the lease agreement, termination of tenancy, and possession of the suit property. The court also referred to relevant legal provisions such as Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court's decision was influenced by the clear and unambiguous admissions made by the defendant, which led to the passing of a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a decree for eviction, recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and damages from the defendants. The defendants admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent, and the lease agreement. The defendants also claimed an oral agreement to sell the property, which the plaintiffs denied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants' admissions regarding the lease agreement and termination of tenancy were clear and unambiguous. The court passed a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, directing the defendants to vacate the suit property.
Issues: The main issues were the admissions made by the defendants regarding the lease agreement and the existence of an oral agreement to sell the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the clear and unambiguous admissions made by the defendants, as well as legal provisions such as Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Delhi Rent Control Act, to pass a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court passed a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, directing the defendants to vacate the suit property and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiffs.
1. By this application the plaintiff seeks a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of the admissions made by the defendant.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the defendants have clearly admitted the relationship of a landlord and tenant qua the suit property. The defendants have further admitted the rate of rent and lease agreement dated 15th February, 2010 vide which suit property was leased out ON a monthly rent of Rs. 3 lakhs to M/s. GT Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The defendants have admitted that defendant No.2 is staying in the suit property in her capacity as Director of defendant No.1 as she was put into the premises pursuant to the said lease dated 15th February, 2010. The defendants have admitted that lease deed is not registered and therefore the tenancy has to be on month-to-month basis. The rent of the premises being more than 3,500/- per month, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act do not apply. The defendants have also admitted that notice in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short the TP Act) has been issued and the tenancy has been validly terminated. Further M/s Ganton India Pvt. Ltd. vide its reply dated 22nd September, 2012 to the plaintiffs have admitted that the execution of the amendment agreement was without consent or knowledge of the Board of Directors of M/s Ganton India Pvt. Ltd. Further on coming to know of the demenour of defendant No.2, the Board of Directors of Ganton India Pvt. Ltd. have decided to take appropriate action to cancel the lease of the property as the property was taken on lease in company’s name illegally and without authorization from the company, return the property immediately to plaintiffs and utilize the deposits paid towards lease of the property for settlement of the outstanding rent due to the plaintiffs. The only dispute raised by the defendant No.2 is that the defendant No.2 in her written statement claims that the plaintiff No.2 entered into an oral agreement to sell the suit property to defendant No.2. Further no document in this regard has been filed and thus the plea is wholly false, irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Reliance is placed on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120; Brig. H.S. Cheema & Anr. Vs. State Bank of India 80 (1999) DLT 117; Bai Chanchal and Ors. Vs. Syed Jalaluddin and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 1081; Kesho Lal Kapur & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar & Anr. 81 (1999) DLT 20; Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 66 (1997) DLT 54 (DB); R.N. Sachdeva Vs. Ram Lal Mahajan Charitable Trust 1997 (3) AD(Delhi) 997; Surjit Singh Vs. H.N. Pahilaj (Decd.) Through LRs 65 (1997) DLT 22; Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2765; PPA Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mangal Sain Mittal 166 (2010) DLT 84 (DB) and M/s. Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers Vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation (1976) 4 SCC 687.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 on the other hand contends that a perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 does not make out an unequivocal or unambiguous admission and in the absence thereof no decree on admissions can be passed against the defendant No.2 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 601. During the subsistence of the lease agreement with the defendants, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 entered into an oral agreement to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs. 50 crores out of which Rs. 72 lakhs has been paid as consideration. It is for this reason that the lease deed executed was not registered. Further the agreement to sell or the sale deed was not executed as all the parties did not agree on behalf of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff No.2 later on informed that other parties were also agreeable to the sale to the defendant No.2 and thus received p
