Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Asha Dass - Appellant
Versus
Prime Road Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CS (COMM) 711 of 2017
Decided On : 06-07-2021
Tenants at sufferance and trespassers cannot be denied essential services; disputes over utility disconnections must be substantiated by evidence, delaying summary judgments.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 10, Order XIIIA, and Order I Rule 10(2) - Tenancy dispute - Plaintiffs sought decree for possession and recovery of rent arrears from defendants regarding a property lease - Lessee contended non-payment due to electricity disconnection by lessors - Court found that the issue of electricity must be substantiated by evidence, thus denying summary judgment while allowing deletion of extraneous defendants from the array of parties. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Tenancy at sufferance - Rights of Trespassers - The court highlighted that a tenant at sufferance and a trespasser enjoys similar rights concerning essential services - It was emphasized that even alleged trespassers cannot be deprived of fundamental rights, such as electricity, without due process. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, owners of a property, sought arrears of rent and recovery of possession against the defendant lessee who claimed non-payment due to utilities being disconnected. The lease was initiated in 2015 and arrears accumulated by 2017. Legal notices began proceedings for eviction.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the applications for summary judgment due to unresolved disputes about property usability stemming from the disconnection of essential services, permitting the matter to be decided after further evidence.
Issues: The principal questions were whether the lessee's claims regarding service disconnection warranted relief, and the extent of obligations post-termination of tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: Tenants at sufferance have limited rights but cannot be denied essential services. The need for a detailed evidentiary hearing was justified before any decisions could be made on rent payments or possession.
Result: Applications dismissed and one application for deletion of parties allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. possession and payment of rent obligations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants claim exemption from rent due to electricity disconnection. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. reference to previous judgments in support of arguments. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. rebuttal of defendants' claims regarding electricity issues. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. deletion of unnecessary parties from the suit. (Para 10) |
| 6. court's analysis on tenants and electricity rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. decision on applications based on disputes regarding electricity connectivity. (Para 15) |
| 8. conclusion and next steps in the case. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
I.A. 4893/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC r/w Order XV-A Rule 1 CPC-by plaintiffs)
I.A. 2830/2020 (under Order XIIIA CPC-summary judgment-by plaintiffs)
I.A. 2831/2020 (under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC-by defendant Nos.2 & 3 for deletion from the array of parties)
1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs impleading Prime Road Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vivek Yadav, Inderjeet and Subramaniah Syamala Murthy as defendant Nos. 1 to 4. By the suit, the plaintiffs sought a decree of possession of the suit property and recovery of arrears of rent besides damages/mesne profits along with the interest thereon. Case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners of the premises forming part of the property bearing No. 21A, Janpath, New Delhi i.e. front portion of the first floor admeasuring 2000 square feet covered area (in short, the `suit property'). The suit property was let out to defendant No. 1 company vide the registered lease deed dated 9th September, 2015 for a period of three years effective from 1st July, 2015 upto 30th June, 2018. Though the possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant No. 1 company on 1st June, 2015 for carrying out the interior works, however, the monthly rent was to start with effect from 1st July, 2015. The monthly rent of the premises was agreed and fixed at Rs.5 lakhs less Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) payable quarterly and it was also agreed that any delay in the payment of rent beyond 7th day upto 15 days, shall attract 2% interest and beyond 30 days after service of notice, shall give the right to the owners to terminate the lease forthwith.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that after the present suit was filed, the possession of the premises was handed over on 31st May, 2018 and that arrears of rent started from 1st April, 2017. Further, legal notice was issued to the defendant No. 1 on 15th/16th May, 2017, terminating the tenancy with effect from 31st May, 2017. It is thus claimed that the defendant No. 1 owes arrears of rent for the months of April and May, 2017 amounting to Rs.10 lakhs plus damages/mesne profits for a period of 12 months from 1st June, 2017 to 31st May, 2018 amounting to Rs.60 lakhs. The arrears of TDS from 1st July, 2015 to 31st March, 2017 i.e. Rs.10,50,000/- have since been deposited by the defendant No. 1, however, the service tax due amounting to Rs.10,15,000/- from 1st April, 2016 to 31st May, 2017 is pending. The defendant No. 1 had deposited a security for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and further paid a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- when the plaintiffs filed complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. It is thus claimed that out of the total amount due of Rs.80,15,000/-, the balance amount due towards the defendants was Rs.41,65,000/- with interest thereon.
3. Case of the defendants in the written statement is that from 17th October, 2017 to 18th March, 2018, the electricity to the suit premises was got disconnected at the instance of the plaintiffs and hence, the defendant No. 1 is not liable to pay the rent for the said period because defendant No. 1 could not utilize the premises. Hence the defendants are liable to pay no amount in view of the dues having been adjusted from the security deposit and the additional sum of Rs.13,50,000/- paid. Further, defendant No.1 has filed a counter claim which is pending adjudication.
4.
