Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Arrena Overseas Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s Batra Art Press - Respondent
CS(Comm) 806 of 2016 & I.A.17362 of 2015 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC), I.A.10625 of 2020 (u of S 151 CPC), I.A.13372 of 2022 (O-XI R-1(10) of Commercial Courts Act)
Decided On : 28-10-2022
POSSESSION - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII R-6 r.w. Order XIIIA - [1908 CPC] - The court discussed the controversy in the suit and referred to the family structure of late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra. The plaintiff sought relief of possession and other reliefs. The suit was contested by the defendant firm, disputing the existence of lessor and lessee relationship, the validity of the Lease Agreement, and the ownership of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant firm had no legal right to be in possession of the suit property and relied on various judgments in support. The defendant firm argued that the Lease Agreement was never intended to be acted upon and was superseded by a subsequent MoU. The court examined the admissions made by the defendant and the intent of the parties to enter into the Lease Agreement. It also considered the shareholding and directorship disputes in the plaintiff company. The court concluded that no case was made out for passing a judgment on the basis of admission and dismissed the application.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought relief of possession and other reliefs against the defendant firm, alleging non-payment of rent and failure to vacate the lease premises. The defendant firm contested the suit, disputing the existence of lessor and lessee relationship, the validity of the Lease Agreement, and the ownership of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no case was made out for passing a judgment on the basis of admission and dismissed the application.
Issues: The issues included the existence of lessor and lessee relationship, the validity of the Lease Agreement, ownership of the suit property, and shareholding and directorship disputes in the plaintiff company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the case did not warrant passing a judgment on the basis of admission and dismissed the application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application and stated that any observations made were only for the purposes of deciding the present application and would have no bearing on the final adjudication of the suit.
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. - J. I.A. 721/2018 (O-XIIIA R-2 r.w. O-XII R-6 of CPC)
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall dispose of the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII R-6 read with Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking relief of possession. Notice in this application was issued on 19th January, 2018 and reply has been filed on behalf of the defendant. Both sides have also filed written submissions along with judgments in support.
2. To appreciate the controversy in the suit, it may be useful to refer to the family structure of late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra. Late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra had two sons, namely Jaspal Singh Batra and Ravinder Pal Singh Batra. Jaspal Singh Batra has three sons, viz. Harjot Batra, Jaspreet Singh Batra and Gurjot Batra and Ravinder Pal Singh Batra has two sons, being Prabhdit Singh Batra and Hardit Batra.
3. Prabhdit Singh Batra and his brother Hardit Singh Batra are the partners of the defendant firm. At the time of filing of the present suit, the plaintiff company was controlled by late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra and after his demise, it appears that the plaintiff company is in the control of the sons of Jaspal Singh Batra.
4. Briefly, the plaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiff based on the following pleadings:
(i) The defendant, being a registered partnership firm, approached the plaintiff company for letting out a portion of the ground floor and basement of the property bearing No.A-41, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110028 (suit property). A lease agreement dated 1st April, 2007 (Lease Agreement) was entered into between the plaintiff company and the defendant firm.
(ii) The defendant firm was to pay a rent of Rs.2,50,000/- per month towards lease rental.
(iii) The lease expired on 31st March, 2010, but the defendant firm failed to vacate the lease premises.
(iv) The plaintiff company terminated the lease agreement vide legal notice dated 15th May, 2015 and vide notice dated 14th July, 2015 called upon the defendant firm to handover the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the leased premised and pay the outstanding lease rent amount for the last three years.
(v) Defendant firm failed to respond to the aforesaid notice.
5. Accordingly, the present suit was filed on 10th August, 2015 praying for the following reliefs:
'a) Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant / its partners directing them to vacate and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property as fully mentioned in the lease deed and Para 4 of the suit to the Plaintiff.
b) Decree in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant / its partners for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lacs only) towards arrears of rent;
c) Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant / its partners directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- per month as damages for the illegal use and occupation of the premise from termination of the lease till the handing over of the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property;
d) Pendentilite and future interest @ 18% per annnm on the aforesaid amount and cost of proceedings.'
6. The suit has been contested on behalf of the defendant firm by filing a written statement, wherein it has been pleaded that:
(i) There does not exist any relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties.
(ii) The Lease Agreement has not been signed on behalf of any of the partners of the defendant firm and the same is not registered.
(iii) The Lease Agreement bears the signature of Ravinder Pal Singh Batra, who retired as a partner on 31st March, 2004 and was therefore, not authorized to sign on behalf of the defendant firm.
(iv) The Lease Agreement is a sham document and was never acted upon. At no point of time was any rent was paid by the defendant firm to the plaintiff company under the said lease. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the profit and loss account of the plaintiff company for the Financial
The court ruled that a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 requires clear, unambiguous admissions, which were absent in this case, highlighting the need for a full trial to resolve ownership....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property of the firm includes all property and rights brought into the stock of the firm, and the partnership firm became the owner of the....
The court held that a prima facie case was made out on behalf of the plaintiff to continue to occupy the portion of the suit property occupied by her, that the rights of the plaintiff in respect of t....
In eviction proceedings governed by rent control laws, a landlord need not prove absolute title, only the right to possession. A licensee is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from questi....
Judgment on admissions may be granted under Order XII Rule 6 when the Defendant accepts the tenancy and terms of rent, despite challenges to ownership.
The court ruled that a plaintiff’s limited interest in property, dictated by the will, cannot be construed as absolute ownership; undue influence invalidates share transfers.
The court upheld the plaintiff's need for the premises for building purposes, finding the notice to quit valid and the defendant's claim of manufacturing unproven.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
