JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 57999/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 1837/2023, CM APPL. 57998/2023

1.  This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders dated 26.11.2022 and 28.08.2023 passed by ADJ-08, Central District, (`Trial Court') in CS DJ No. 188/2022, titled as Neeta Sahni v. Santosh Kaur Puri & Anr.

1.1.  The Petitioners herein are defendants and the Respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court.

1.2.  The Trial Court vide order dated 26.11.2022 directed the defendants to deposit the arrears of `rent' within three (3) months. The Trial Court vide order dated 28.08.2023 dismissed the application filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') for review of the order dated 26.11.2022.

2.  The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Trial Court failed to consider the four (4) receipts executed by late Sh. Adarsh Kumar Sahni, the deceased husband of the Respondent-landlady which evidence that a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- was accepted by late Sh. Adarsh Kumar Sahni in furtherance of the Memorandum of Understanding (`MoU') (hereinafter referred to as `security agreement') dated 16.02.2021. The details of the receipts relied upon by the Petitioner are as under:

Sl. No.Date of ReceiptsAmount (Rs.)1.10.12.20204 lakhs2.15.01.20217.5 lakhs3.05.02.20213 lakhs4.14.02.20213 lakhs

2.1.  He states that in fact, the Respondent-landlady herself has signed as a witness on three (3) of these receipts. He states that her signatures appear on the receipts dated 15.01.2021, 05.02.2021 and 14.02.2021. He states that this entire amount of Rs. 17,50,000 was paid over late Sh. Adarsh Kumar Sahni in `cash'.

2.2.  He states that the security agreement dated 16.02.2021 was executed in furtherance of the rent deed dated 30.11.2020 executed between both the parties. He states that since the Respondent-landlady and her husband i.e., late Sh. Adarsh Kumar Sahni required funds, they had requested the Petitioner herein to lend them an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/-. He states that the said security agreement duly records the aforesaid four (4) receipts and it was agreed between the parties that the said loan amount will carry an interest of Rs. 17,500/- per month.

2.3.  He relies upon the security agreement to contend that the parties agreed that monthly rent of Rs. 17,000/- will be adjusted against the aforesaid interest of Rs. 17,500/- per month.

2.4.  He states that, therefore, in view of the security agreement, no order for deposit of arrears of rent could have been passed by the Trial Court.

2.5.  He states that the security agreement has been signed by late Sh. Adarsh Kumar Sahni and the Respondent landlady is a witness to the said agreement.

2.6.  He states that the rent agreement dated 30.11.2020 has to be read in conjunction with security agreement dated 16.02.2021.

2.7.  He states that the Petitioner admits that the rent agreement dated 30.11.2020 was signed between the parties and the Petitioner is a tenant in the said premises. He states that the rent at Rs. 17,000 per month was duly remitted till January, 2021. He states, however, with effect from February, 2021, the payment of rent was not made in terms of the security agreement dated 16.02.2021. The interest payable on the loan amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- was to constitute as the rent of the property.

3.  In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the purported security agreement dated 16.02.2021 is a forged document and so also the four (4) alleged receipts are forged documents.

3.1.  She states that it is a matter of record that late Sh. Adarsh Kumar Sahni was critically ill and was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 11.02.2021 and he thereafter, expired on 24.02.2021 in the hospital.

3.2.  She states that prior to that since December 2020, late Sh. Adarsh Kumar Sahni was terminally ill and he was suffe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document