The admission of possession and absence of evidence of termination of the lease deed influenced the court's decision in dismissing the revision petition.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

CM-4579-CII-2021

This is an application for exemption from filing certified and typed copies of the Annexures P-1 to P-11.

CM is allowed as prayed for.

CM-4720-CII-2021

This is an application for placing on record Annexures A-1 to A-6 and for exemption from filing certified and typed copies thereof.

CM is allowed as prayed for subject to just exceptions.

CR NO.1023 OF 2021

2. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court whereby application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC filed by the plaintiffs respondents has been allowed and the defendant-petitioner has been ordered to pay mesne profit to the tune of Rs.1,79,567/- per month from February 2020 to March 2021 and continuously during the pendency of the civil suit.

3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis, as culled out from the revision petition as well as the Zimni orders available on the website of the Trial Court, are that plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of Unit No.PSP C-SF-2006, Tower C, Second Floor, Palm Springs Plaza, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurugram, Haryana and leased out the said premises to the defendant-petitioner vide lease deed dated 11.08.2016 (Annexure P-1). Due to non-payment of rent, a legal notice dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure P-2) was sent to the defendant-petitioner inter-alia calling upon it to vacate the premises by 31.10.2020, pay Rs.20,43,642/- as remainder rental amount due with interest, pay Rs.3,51,527/- towards pending electricity charges and Rs.4,54,072/- towards pending maintenance charges. The defendant-petitioner sent a reply dated 08.11.2020 (Annexure P-3) to the said legal notice stating therein that due to the poor sales, as a result of lockdown imposed due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the defendant-petitioner was not in a position to pay the rent of the demised premises and had intimated to the plaintiffs-respondents that the defendant-petitioner would hand over the keys/possession of the premises in the month of January 2020 and had demanded the security deposit of Rs.5,38,700/- to be returned to it. It was further stated in the reply that the security deposit was not refunded and the defendant-petitioner was asked to hold the keys of the premises. It has further been stated in the reply that the possession was handed over in January 2020 and only the keys of the premises are still with the defendant-petitioner and that the defendantpetitioner had paid the electricity and maintenance till it was in possession. On 04.01.2021 the plaintiffs-respondents filed a civil suit for eviction, recovery of arrears and damages against the defendant-petitioner. A copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure P-4. On 11.01.2021 the Trial Court issued notice to the defendant-petitioner for 03.02.2021.

4. On 03.02.2021 the defendant-petitioner put in appearance in the civil suit. An interim prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiffsrespondents that the suit premises had been abandoned by the defendantpetitioner after the filing of suit and receipt of notice and the same has been taken into possession by the plaintiffs-respondents and sought a stay order from the Trial Court against forcible dispossession and interference in the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the suit premises to which counsel for the defendant-petitioner sought time to consult his client and take instructions. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The order passed by the Trial Court on 03.02.2021 is annexed as Annexure P-6. On 09.02.2021 the defendant-petitioner filed a written statement (Annexure P-5) and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint. On 15.02.2021 the counsel for the defendant-petitioner made a statement before the Trial Court mentioning that the defendant-petitioner was in possession of the suit premises. The order p