Point of Law: Order XV-A of CPC reads in any suit by a owner/lessor for eviction of an unauthorized occupant/lessee or for recovery of rent and future mesne profits from him.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. In C.S. No. 10084/2016, instituted by the respondents against the petitioner, the learned Additional District Judge (“the learned ADJ”) vide order dated 9th October 2017, passed under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as applicable to Delhi, directed the petitioner, as the defendant in suit, to pay arrears of rent/mesne profits, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the order i.e. 9th October 2017, @ Rs. 50,000/- per month and to pay future mesne profit/damages w.e.f. November 2017 onwards, at the same rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month. An application filed by the petitioner, under Section 114 of the CPC, seeking review of the said order dated 9th October 2017, was dismissed by the learned ADJ vide order dated 24th December 2018.

2. Both these applications have been called into question by the petitioner-defendant, in the present petition, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Facts and impugned orders the suit

3. C.S. (OS) No. 2227/2013, which was the number under which C.S. No. 10084/2016 was originally registered when filed before this Court prior to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Courts, asserted that the petitioner had entered into a lease agreement dated 16th December 2008 with Respondent 1 Kamlesh Wadhwa in respect of the suit property situated at D-5, Ground Floor, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024 of which Respondents 2 and 3, the sons of Kamlesh Wadhwa, were co-owners.

4. The property was stated to have been leased to the petitioner for running a fitness centre. As per the lease agreement, the petitioner was to pay rent @ Rs. 40,000/- per month to the respondents. The lease was for a duration of 22 months, to end on 2nd October 2010. This period was, by mutual agreement, extended for a period of 11 months. The plaint asserted that the petitioner had agreed to pay rent, in respect of the suit property, @ Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 3rd October 2010.

5. The plaint further drew attention to Para 17 of the lease agreement, whereunder, on expiry/termination of the lease, the petitioner was required to pay pre-determined liquidated damages @ Rs. 3,000/- per day, in addition to rent. Default was to entitle the respondents to enter and take over the suit property and to result in ipso facto cancellation of the lease agreement.

6. Para 5 of the plaint acknowledged the fact that, apart from the aforesaid transactions relatable to the lease agreement, certain other transactions by cheque and cash, including transactions relating to certain amounts borrowed by the respondents from the petitioner from time to time, also took place. These, however, it was asserted, were identifiable as separate receipts were issued in that regard. Para 5 of the plaint, which so averred, reads thus:

“5. That apart from payment of lease money which payment used to be tendered by the defendant through cheques only and also-accepted through cheques by the plaintiff, There were certain cheque and cash transactions on account of some borrowings by the plaintiff from the defendant from time to time. However, both transaction i.e. of payment of lease money and borrowings by the plaintiff were apart and obviously also and also identifiable since the former were through cheque payment only and the later in cash/cheque for which the defendant used to take separate receipts also.”

7. The plaint alleged that, using blank signed papers which Respondent 1 had, in good faith, given to the petitioner, a forged and fabricated agreement to sell dated 5th October 2010 was created by the petitioner, in respect of the suit property. The plaint categorically denied Respondent 1 having ever entered into any such agreement, with the petitioner, to sell the suit property.

8. Arrears of rent, allegedly payable by the petitioner to the respondents, it was alleged, had accumulated to Rs. 22,45,000/-. The plaint further alleged that, w.e.f. 5th March 2011, pe