Disputed questions of fact require resolution in a civil forum, and summary proceedings under the Companies Act are not suitable for such cases.

Sanjeev Sachdeva J. (Oral): 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the respondent has failed to pay the admitted dues of Rs.80,00,000/- to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a tenant in the property under the respondent. The tenancy was created by a registered lease deed dated 04.04.2012. The possession of the premises was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner on 04.04.2012 for the purpose of fitment etc. and the monthly rent was to commence w.e.f. 01.06.2012.

3. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.24,00,000/-as interest free security deposit and Rs.56,00,000/- as advance rental being rental @ Rs.8,00,000/- per month for six months.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the property was mortgaged with Karur Vysya Bank and the petitioner was not informed of the same by the respondent. As per the petitioner, the petitioner received a letter dated 18.06.2012 from the said bank contending that the respondent had defaulted in repayment of the credit facilities and, accordingly, the bank had issued a demand notice dated 23.02.2012 and had taken symbolic possession on 25.04.2012.

5. The petitioner thereafter sought clarification from the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner by notice dated 08.11.2012 terminated the lease deed and called upon the respondent to refund the sum of Rs.80,00,000/- paid as stated hereinabove, besides a sum of Rs.42,54,523/-towards expenses incurred by the petitioner on the premises.

6. The respondent Company was called upon to take possession of the premises on 15.11.2012 and to handover the demand draft for the amount claimed to be due by the petitioner.

7. The present petition has been filed contending that the respondent has failed to pay the admitted amount of Rs.80,00,000/-i.e. the amount paid towards the security deposit and the advance rental which was an admitted debt and was not paid by the respondent despite service of notice of demand dated 26.09.2013.

8. The respondent has contested the petition. The defence of the respondent is that the petitioner was always aware of the mortgage and the availing of the credit facilities by the Respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner accepting all the terms and conditions and satisfying itself had entered into the lease with the respondent.

9. The contention of the respondent is that there was a lock-in-period of 36 months and the petitioner could not have vacated the premises prior to the expiry of the said 36 months.

10. It is contended by the Respondent that the petitioner violated the terms of the lease deed and having no intention to pay the monthly rent created a false plea of the action by the bank.

11. It is contended by the respondent, that the respondent had assured the petitioner that the possession of the premises would not be disturbed. It is submitted that in fact the possession of the petitioner was neither disturbed by the respondent nor by the bank and the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the property without any hindrance.

12. It is further contended that the petitioner had not vacated the premises in November 2012 but the possession of the premises was handed over in November 2013.

13. It is submitted by the respondent that even if the contentions of the petitioner were to be accepted, the petitioner would still be liable to pay the rent for the period that the petitioner had occupied the premises, as such, the respondent would not be liable to refund the security deposit or the advance rental. On the contrary, it is contended that the petitioner would be liable to pay a further amount to the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent has also filed a petition seeking winding up of the petitioner for failure to pay the amounts in terms of the lease deed to the respondent.

14. It is contended by the respondent that the petition involves substantial disputed question of fact which cannot be settled in the summary proceedings