JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

CM Appl. No.2558/2023 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

Caveat No. 44/2023

Since learned counsel for the caveator/respondents has put in appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

FAO 11/2023 & CM Appl.2557/2023 (Stay)

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant/defendant seeks setting aside of order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-02 (North-West) Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS DJ No. 63/2021, whereby the application filed by respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the appellant directed to pay arrears of rent from May 2020 onwards @ Rs.27,500/- per month till date (at the admitted rent i.e. @ Rs.27,500/- per month) within 30 days and further to continue to make payment of rent @ Rs.27,500/- p.m. on or before the 15th of the succeeding month during the pendency of the Suit.

2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the aforementioned Suit was filed by the respondents (respondent No.1 being partner of respondent No.1-firm) for possession, recovery of rent/mesne profits/damages. In the Suit, it was claimed that the respondents were the owner-landlord of property bearing MIG Flat No. 98, First Floor, MIG Flats, Block-AN, Shalimar Residential Scheme, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘suit property’) and the appellant was inducted as a tenant therein. From May, 2020 onwards, the appellant started defaulting in the payment of rent and so, the respondents had served him with a statutory notice dated 26.10.2020 terminating tenancy in the suit property and calling upon the appellant to vacate it on or before 15.11.2020. However, the appellant neither vacated the suit property nor paid the defaulted amount due towards the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is the owner of the suit property by virtue of an Agreement to Sell orally arrived at between him and respondent No.1. As such, he was not required to pay any rent to the respondents. Rather, instalments towards sale consideration were to be paid.

It is further contended that the Suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable, the same being hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

4. Mr. Arun Maitri, learned counsel has put in appearance for the respondents on advance notice and opposed the prayer made in the appeal. It is submitted that as per the admitted Rent Agreement(s) between the parties, the appellant was paying a monthly rent which was revised from time to time, and the last agreed upon monthly rent was Rs.27,500/-. After expiry of the tenancy, if both parties wanted to extend the tenancy, rent would be increased by 10% on monthly rent. In support of the contention, copies of rent agreements dated 30.04.2010, 06.05.2011 and 01.03.2012 have been placed on record.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. In the present case, the appellant has raised two contentions: first, that an oral Agreement to Sell with respect to the suit property was entered between him and respondent No.1 in the year 2014, and as such, he was not required to pay the rent claimed by the respondents, and second, that the respondents’ Suit was not maintainable in view of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

7. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the tenancy with the appellant was terminated by the respondents vide notice dated 26.10.2020, whereby the appellant was also called upon to hand over the possession of the suit property on or before 15.11.2020. Purportedly, despite service of statutory notice upon him, the appellant started defaulting in making rent payments from May, 2020 onwards, and arrears to the tune of Rs.1,18,750/- became due. Upon a consideration of the averments made by both sides in their pleadings, the impugned order came to be passed aga