2021 Supreme(Del) 1154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
M/s Himangni Enterprises - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Himangni Enterprises - Respondent
FAO 175 of 2021, CM Nos. 26748 of 2021, 26749 of 2021, FAO 176 of 2021, CM Nos. 26751 of 2021, 26752 of 2021, FAO 177 of 2021, CM Nos. 26754 of 2021, 26755 of 2021, FAO 178 of 2021, CM Nos. 26759 of 2021, 26760 of 2021, FAO 179 of 2021, CM Nos. 26764 of 2021, 26765 of 2021, FAO 180 of 2021, CM Nos. 26768 of 2021, 26769 of 2021, FAO 181 of 2021, CM Nos. 26775 of 2021, 26776 of 2021, FAO 182 of 2021, CM Nos. 26780 of 2021, 26781 of 2021, FAO 183 of 2021, CM Nos. 26785 of 2021, 26786 of 2021, FAO 184 of 2021, CM Nos. 26792 of 2021, 26793 of 2021, FAO 185 of 2021, CM Nos. 26795 of 2021, 26796 of 2021, FAO 186 of 2021, CM Nos. 26798 of 2021, 26799 of 2021, FAO 187 of 2021, CM Nos. 26803 of 2021, 26804 of 2021, FAO 188 of 2021, CM Nos. 26806 of 2021, 26807 of 2021, FAO 189 of 2021, CM Nos. 26811 of 2021, 26812 of 2021, FAO 190 of 2021, CM Nos. 26814 of 2021, 26815 of 2021, FAO 191 of 2021, CM Nos. 26874 of 2021, 26875 of 2021, FAO 192 of 2021, CM Nos. 26879 of 2021, 26880 of 2021, FAO 193 of 2021, CM Nos. 26882 of 2021, 26883 of 2021, FAO 194 of 2021, CM Nos. 26899 of 2021, 26900 of 2021, FAO 195 of 2021, CM Nos. 26928 of 2021, 26929 of 2021, FAO 196 of 2021, CM Nos. 26939 of 2021, 26940 of 2021, FAO 197 of 2021, CM Nos. 26991 of 2021, 26992 of 2021, FAO 198 of 2021, CM Nos. 26994 of 2021, 26995 of 2021, FAO 199 of 2021 and CM Nos. 27360 of 2021, 27361 of 2021
Decided On : 03-09-2021

Headnote:

LANDLORD-TENANT - SUIT FOR EJECTMENT - ARREARS OF RENT AND USE AND OCCUPATION CHARGES - ORDER XXXIX RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC - ADMISSIBILITY - LEASE DEED - INTERPRETATION - RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT - APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC - DECREE OF POSSESSION - FINALITY - MOU - ADMISSIBILITY - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - REJECTION - REVISION PETITION - DISMISSAL - CONCLUSIVE FINDING - APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 10 CPC - ADMITTED RENT - GRANT OF ARREARS OF RENT AND USE AND OCCUPATION CHARGES - JUSTIFIED.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed suits for ejectment of the appellant, who was a tenant, from different units; for recovery of rent and mesne profits at market rate on the ground that the appellant is in unauthorized occupation. The appellant filed written statements and took a stand that the Commercial Complex was proposed to be constructed on a plot of land bearing No. 14, ad-measuring 6986 Sq. Meters., situated at Jasola, New Delhi which was allotted by the Delhi Development Authority to a company namely 'OMAXE Construction Limited' at an auction held on March 21, 2005 for construction of a commercial complex as per the building plans approved by Delhi Development Authority and / or any other authorities. It was stated by the appellant that the company had a plan to construct the complex and had decided to make allotments of the commercial spaces to the intending allottees. It was also stated that after the construction of the complex namely, OMAXE SQUARE, the company OMAXE Construction Limited sold different commercial spaces / units to intending buyers (including predecessor-in-interest) of the respondent vide sale deeds qua the respective units. The predecessors-in-interest of the respondent named above allegedly purchased the suit properties vide sale deed executed by OMAXE Construction Limited through its authorized signatory in their favour. It was further stated that the said owners after having purchased their respective units / spaces approached the appellant to facilitate the leasing of their units to WIPRO Ltd. It was stated that the Company WIPRO Ltd. agreed to take the entire second floor of the complex including the common areas on lease with a condition to convert the individual units into a big open space. The individual owners though agreed to give their units on lease, but they were not willing to incur the expenses for breaking down the walls or other expenses to make the place rentable since it would have been difficult to coordinate with more than 30 individual owners. In order to facilitate the modalities of lease, the appellant entered into three-fold negotiations; firstly, with the individual unit owners, secondly with WIPRO Ltd. and thirdly with OMAXE Limited. Eventually OMAXE Limited agreed to accord permission to break down the walls of the units situated on the second floor of the said complex on payment of a one-time fee of Rs. 15 Lacs. After due negotiations, separate agreements / lease deeds were entered into between the individual unit owners and the appellant wherein it was specifically agreed that the lessee (appellant herein) would be entitled to sub-lease the said units to WIPRO Ltd. only on the terms and conditions settled therein. It was also the stand of the appellant in its written statements that the suits were not maintainable as the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent entered into lease deeds with the appellant qua suit properties with the sole intention to give the suit properties on lease to WIPRO Ltd. through appellant and that the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent had authorized and empowered the appellant with full liberty to sign the lease deeds in favour of the WIPRO Ltd. thereby making it clear that the end user was WIPRO Ltd., who had all the rights to enjoy the suit properties. After the agreements with the individual owners of the units, a lease deed dated June 4, 2010 was executed between the appellant and the WIPRO Ltd. in respect of super area of approximately 17921 Sq. Ft. on the second floor of the business complex, OMAX SQUARE which area was transformed into an open space after breaking the walls of the individual units inclusive of the suit properties.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Id. ADJ has rightly granted the arrears of rent and use and occupation charges in favour of the respondent till the date of possession of the units / suit properties to him. The Court also held that the Id. ADJ was justified in rejecting the appellant's application for amendment of the written statement to include the MoU dated October 12, 2015, as the MoU was not a part of the defence of the appellant and it was attempted to be put on record by way of an amendment application which was disallowed.

Issues: 1. Whether the Id. ADJ was justified in allowing the applications of the respondent (in the suits filed by him) under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC and grant the arrears of rent and use and occupation charges in his favour till the date of possession of the units / suit properties to him? 2. Whether the Id. ADJ was justified in rejecting the appellant's application for amendment of the written statement to include the MoU dated October 12, 2015?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Id. ADJ was justified in allowing the applications of the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC and grant the arrears of rent and use and occupation charges in his favour till the date of possession of the units / suit properties to him, as the appellant had failed to establish a strong prima facie case in its favour and there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. 2. The Court held that the Id. ADJ was justified in rejecting the appellant's application for amendment of the written statement to include the MoU dated October 12, 2015, as the MoU was not a part of the defence of the appellant and it was attempted to be put on record by way of an amendment application which was disallowed.

Final Decision: The appeals and connected application(s) are accordingly dismissed. No costs.