The Court emphasized that an order under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC and/or Order XV-A CPC is an interim measure to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff/owner, and should be carefully passed to protect the plaintiff's interest during the pendency of the trial.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC by the appellant/plaintiff against order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-11, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS DJ No. 10175/16.

2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the appellant had filed the underlying suit for possession, arrears of property tax, mesne profits etc. In the plaint, it was claimed that the respondent/defendant is a tenant of part of ground floor, entire first floor and part of second floor (barsati) in property bearing No. 2407-19, Hardhian Singh Road, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05. It was further claimed that initially, separate tenancies were created in the names of Dayal Chand and Gangra Ram (partners of defendant/respondent) however subsequently, a consolidated rent was paid by the present respondent/defendant.

It is a specific case of the appellant that the respondent/defendant has amalgamated the different tenancies and paid a consolidated rent of Rs.6,655/-.

3. Mr. K.K. Bhuchar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant had terminated the tenancy and the last consolidated rent of Rs.6,655/- was received till April, 2014. He further submitted that although in the application filed, a direction to the respondent for deposit of Rs.12 lacs per month towards use and occupation charges was sought, during the submissions before the Trial Court, only an amount of Rs.8 lacs was demanded. While relying on the lease deeds with respect to various other properties in the adjacent vicinity, one of which was executed by none other than the partner of the respondent-firm, it was submitted that average rent is Rs.145/- per sq. ft. It was also submitted that all the lease deeds provide for a minimum 10% increase in every three years.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, on the other hand, submitted that on similar averments, an application filed by the appellant under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC came to be dismissed by the Trial Court in consideration of a specific plea by the respondent that there was a fourth tenancy with regard to the portion stated to be unauthorizedly occupied, as opposed to three. Learned counsel further submitted that the said order has attained finality having not been assailed before this Court, and enhancement of the amount already granted would amount to granting final relief in the suit.

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

6. Vide order dated 01.10.2022, the respondent/defendant has been directed to pay rent/occupation charges @ Rs.6,655/- per month from the date of filing of suit till pendency. The limited contention raised by the appellant is that the amount of rent/occupation charges be adjudicated in view of the registered lease deeds placed on record.

7. It is worthwhile to note that during the proceedings before the Trial Court, a statement of Mr. Kishan Lal Ahuja, partner of the respondent/defendant, was recorded under the provisions of Order 10 Rule 2 CPC wherein he stated as under :

"I am the partner in firm M/s Dayal Chand Kishori Lal (Defendant). Earlier my father was partner in the above said firm, after the death of my father on 23.02.2000. On my induction as partner in the firm, partnership deed was reconstituted in year 2000 itself, since then I am partner in the above said firm. I do not know the name of other partners. In fact there are four families the members of which are partner in that firm their names I do not remember off hand. I have not placed on record the partnership deed of the defendant firm. Presently, plaintiff Swaran Makkar is the landlord in respect of property in question in which defendant firms is the tenant. Our firm pay rent of Rs.6500 per month. We remit the rent by way of cheque. I do not want to say anything else."

8. There is no dispute over whether there was landlord-tenant relationship between the parties