Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
M/s Innovative Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Babita Aggarwal – Respondent
RSA Nos. 306, 307, 308 of 2016, CM Nos. 38034, 38038, 38046 of 2016
Decided On : 05-01-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. V.K. Khanna.
For the Respondent: Mr. Puneet Yadav.
The lack of credible evidence to support a claim and the possibility of unauthorized payments can influence the court's decision.
Headnote:
Landlord and Tenant Dispute - Recovery of Rent - Section 151 CPC - [Landlord and Tenant Dispute] - [Section 151 CPC] - [The court discussed the relationship of landlord and tenant, the dispute over the payment of Rs. 10 lacs, and the adjustment of rent for the period from 01.03.2000. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to support the appellant's claim of 'advance rent' and the possibility of unauthorized payments by a close relative of the respondents. The court also emphasized that the TDS collected by the respondents had no impact on the case.]
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a common order in civil suits for recovery and possession of rented premises. The main dispute was regarding the payment of Rs. 10 lacs and the adjustment of rent for the period from 01.03.2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, stating that the appellant failed to establish the payment as 'advance rent' and that the TDS application had no impact on the proceedings.
Issues: Dispute over the nature of the payment of Rs. 10 lacs, adjustment of rent, and unauthorized payments by a close relative of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of evidence to support the appellant's claim of 'advance rent' and the possibility of unauthorized payments influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. The trial court record was to be sent back forthwith with a copy of the order.
S.P. GARG, J.
1. All these appeals are decided by a common judgment as they arise out of a common order dated 22.02.2016 in RCA Nos. 29/2014, 28/2014 and 27/2014. The Second Appeals have been preferred against the order dated 22.02.2016 whereby judgment and decree dated 25.01.2005 of learned Civil Judge in Suit No. 683/2002 titled as Babita Aggarwal vs. M/s. Innovative Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Suit No. 1089/2002 titled as Pushpa Aggarwal vs. M/s. Innovative Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and Suit No. 1068/2002 titled as Ankur Aggarwal vs. M/s. Innovative Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. were upheld.
2. It is relevant to note that Babita Aggarwal, Ankur Aggarwal and Pushpa Aggarwal had filed civil suits for recovery and possession of the rented premises bearing Suit Nos. 683/2002, 1068/2002 and 1089/2002 respectively against M/s. Innovative Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. (hereinafter ‘the appellant’). All these suits were consolidated and disposed of by a common judgment/decree dated 25.01.2005. Suit No. 683/2002 was treated as main suit and all the proceedings of the consolidated suits were recorded therein.
3. It is further relevant to note that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Civil Judge vacant physical possession of the rented accommodation was handed over to the respondents on 21.08.2004. The dispute remained regarding recovery of the arrears of rent/damages only.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not at issue. It is also not in dispute that the premises in question were let out on a specific date. The rate of rent is also not in controversy in any of the three civil suits. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was in arrears of rent for the period from which the rent / damages were claimed by the respondents.
5. Limited dispute between the parties was regarding Rs. 10 lacs paid to the respondents at the time of taking the accommodation on rent by the appellant. It is not in dispute that Rs. 4.5 lacs, Rs. 2.9 lacs and Rs. 2.6 lacs were given to Ankur Aggarwal, Babita Aggarwal and Pushpa Aggarwal on behalf of the appellant Bank. Appellant’s case is that this amount was paid to the respondents as ‘advance’ rent. The said advance rent paid to the respondents was adjusted towards the arrears of rent for the period mentioned in the plaints. It was further urged that TDS certificates were also claimed by the respondents by moving an application under Section 151 CPC for the rent adjusted. It is further urged that Mr. Shankar Lal Aggarwal, who was closely related to the respondents, was working as Managing Director of the Bank at the relevant time and he by misuse of power/authority, released huge ‘advance rent’ to the respondents.
6. Contention of the respondents throughout is that Rs. 10 lacs were never paid as ‘security’ or ‘advance rent’. This amount was paid to them on behalf of the appellant bank for the purpose of renovation of the tenanted premises. The said payment was made towards furniture charges and it was so recorded in the minutes of the bank. It was further urged that the respondents had spent about Rs. 11.5 lacs in the installation of the furniture etc.
7. Both the Courts below did not agree with the appellant’s plea that Rs. 10 lacs were paid as ‘advance rent’. Concurrent findings of the Courts below based upon cogent evidence need no intervention. No material document has been produced by the appellant bank that Rs. 10 lacs in all were paid to the respondents towards ‘advance rent’. It has not been elaborated as to for what period the said ‘advance rent’ pertained. It has come on record that initially the appellant bank had paid the rent regularly to the respondents; only after the rent became due w.e.f. 01.03.2000, no rent was paid to the respondents. It was allegedly adjusted towards Rs. 10 lacs paid to the respondents as advance rent. Appellant’s claim is that excess paymen
