Failure to pay agreed rent enables landlord to seek possession, affirming tenant's obligations under lease agreements.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

Caveat No. 268/2022

1. The learned counsel for the respondents/caveators appears.

2. The caveat stands discharged.

CM No. 39037/2022

3. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

4. The application is disposed of.

RFA(COMM) 60/2022

5. The appellant (defendant no.1) has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 22.07.2022, whereby the respondents (plaintiffs) application under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was allowed.

6. The respondents (plaintiffs) had instituted a suit [being CS(COMM) No.400/2019 captioned Dr. Sushil Gupta & Ors. v. Ravin Kumar @ Rabin Kumar & Anr.] for recovery of possession of the ground floor of built up property bearing address no. 663, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009 along with all fittings and fixtures (hereafter `the suit premises'); arrears of rent; and damages.

7. It was the case of the respondents (plaintiffs) that they had let out the suit premises to appellant (defendant no.1) with effect from 01.03.2018 at a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/-, excluding electricity and water charges, for the purpose of running a Paying Guest Accommodation for the students. The respondents (plaintiffs) claimed that the appellant (defendant no.1) had defaulted in his obligation to pay the rent. The appellant (defendant no.1) had paid the rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for some months and at the rate of Rs.20,000/- for certain other months. The appellant (defendant no.1) had completely stopped making the payment of rent from the month of April, 2019.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents (plaintiffs) had issued a legal notice dated 27.07.2019 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the appellant (defendant no.1) to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises and an aggregate sum of Rs.5,30,000/-. The said sum included arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month for the period April, 2019 to July, 2019 as well as a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- towards arrears of rent from March, 2018 to March, 2019.

9. There is no dispute that the appellant (defendant no.1) had taken the suit premises on lease. According to the appellant (defendant no.1), he had taken the suit premises on rent on 26.02.2018 for a period of one year. The respondents (plaintiffs) also affirm the same although they state that the tenancy was effective from 01.03.2018

10. There is a dispute as to the rent payable. The appellant (defendant no. 1) disputes that the rent for the suit premises was Rs.40,000/- per month as claimed by the respondents (plaintiffs). According to the appellant (defendant no.1), the suit premises were leased out at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant (defendant no.1) also claims that he has handed over twelve blank cheques of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents (plaintiffs) towards advance, which are required to be returned on payment of rent. In addition, the appellant (defendant no.1) claims that he had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondents (plaintiffs) as `Security Deposit', which has not been returned by the respondents (plaintiffs).

11. As noticed above, there is no dispute that the appellant (defendant no.1) had taken the suit premises on rent. Undisputedly, the appellant (defendant no.1) has not paid any rent for the period of four months ending July, 2019.

12. According to the appellant (defendant no.1), he demanded the refund of Security Deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- after expiry of the tenancy on 25.02.2019 but the same has not been refunded by the respondents (plaintiffs).

13. The learned Commercial Court found in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs) and held that they are