Post-termination of tenancy, any preceding retainership agreement does not confer occupancy rights, resulting in illegal possession and dismissal of related appeals.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 29665/2022

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

RFA 283/2022

3. The present appeal seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned ADJ-03, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in CS No. 294/2020. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent no.1/plaintiff for possession of property bearing no. 608, Silver Arc Apartments, 22 Firozshah Road, New Delhi.

4. The common case of the parties is that the subject property was given on lease to the respondent no.2/company vide a registered lease deed dated 16.10.2018 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,25,000/- exclusive of water, electricity and maintenance charges. It is the appellant's case that on 05.03.2020, the appellant and the respondent no.2/company entered into a retainership agreement whereunder the appellant was appointed as a legal consultant of the respondent no.2/company and was entrusted with the task to conduct all legal proceedings of the said company. However, since no retainership amount was being paid to him by the respondent no.2 company, an arrangement was entered into between them whereby the appellant was permitted to occupy the subject property, the rent whereof was to be paid by respondent no.2.

5. The respondent no.2, however, did not pay the rent as per the terms of the retainership agreement. Consequently, the respondent no.1/plaintiff, terminated the tenancy agreement vide its notice dated 29.07.2020 which was sent to the respondent no.2 through e-mail also on 31.07.2020. Since despite service, the suit property was not vacated, the respondent no.1/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the respondent no.2 as also the appellant seeking possession of the suit property.

6. Upon notice being issued in the suit, the respondent no.2/company filed its written statement clearly stating that it had vacated the suit property in March 2020 itself by giving due notice to the respondent no.1/plaintiff. It was further averred that the suit property was now in the illegal possession of the appellant. The suit was also defended by the appellant herein by contending in its written statement that Mr.Anchal Saxena, who had filed the written statement on behalf of the respondent no.2/company was not a director in the company and was therefore not authorized to file the same. It was further averred that Shri Satish Rajaram Pol was the authorized director of the respondent no.2/company and therefore no reliance ought to be placed on the written submissions filed by Mr. Anchal Saxena. Before the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant also prayed that since Mr. Satish Rajaram Pol was a proper and necessary party, he should be impleaded in the suit. The said prayer of the appellant was, however, rejected by the learned Trial Court, who in the light of the stand taken by the respondent no.2 company decreed the suit for possession by holding as under:

"I find merits in the contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. So far as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff is concerned that is' admitted and defendant no.2 itself/not admittedly derive any right, title or interest in the suit property and claiming to be in possession of the suit property on behalf of defendant no.1, in any case, filing of the suit for vacation is itself a service of notice to this effect. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances plaintiff is entitled to decree' for possession of the suit property against the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared. Application is accordingly allowed.

Put up for replication, filing of affidavi