CR-2645-2020 (O&M) and CR-2658-2020 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.207

CR-2645-2020 (O&M)

Date of decision : 26.2.2021

M/s Givo Private Limited

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

Jasjeet Singh Malik and another

..... Respondents

CR-2658-2020 (O&M)

M/s Givo Private Limited

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

Rita Sarin and others

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Sukhwinder Sudan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Vohra, Advocate,

for respondent No.1 in CR-2645-2020 and

for respondent No.1 and 2 in CR-2658-2020.

Mr. Sandeep Phogat, Advocate,

for respondent No.2 in CR-2645-2020 and

for respondent No.3 in CR-2658-2020

*****

SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of aforementioned revision petitions

as common questions of fact and law are involved. The facts are being

extracted from CR-2658-2020.

The petitioner has filed a suit for injunction directing the

defendants therein not to charge rent and common area maintenance

charges for the period of lockdown and also for restraining them from

prohibiting the petitioner from entering into the premises and operating its

RAMANDEEP SINGH

2021.03.02 14:45

CR-2645-2020 (O&M) and CR-2658-2020 (O&M) 2

business therefrom. Alongwith the suit, an application under order 39

Rule 1 and 2 CPC, was filed, which was rejected by the trial Court vide

order dated 22.10.2020. Appeal against the same was dismissed vide

order dated 6.11.2020. Thus, the revision petition has been filed.

The petitioner is the lessee of a premises leased out vide

registered lease deed dated 9.10.2006. It was continuing with its business

peacefully and paying all the due charges till lockdown was imposed on

account of Covid-19 pandemic. This lockdown was in-force from

19.3.2020 to 2.7.2020. Upon lifting of lockdown, the petitioner tried to

re-open his store on 3.7.2020, but according to him, he was prevented

from doing so as there were arrears of maintenance charges. Learned

counsel for third respondent, however, states that on account of arrears of

maintenance charges, common services were not provided, but the

petitioner was never prevented from entering the store. Be that as it may,

the petitioner was unable to continue with its business as electricity

supply, dis-continued during the course of the lockdown, was never

restored. Thus, he filed the suit referred to hereinabove, wherein, on

deposit of Rs.25,000/-, electricity supply was restored w.e.f. 10.9.2020.

The application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed on

22.10.2020 and electricity supply was dis-continued again w.e.f.

24.10.2020.

Thus, undisputedly, the premises in dispute remained shut for

the period 19.3.2020 to 2.7.2020, 3.7.2020 to 9.9.2020 and from

24.10.2020 till date. It has functioned for the period 10.9.2020 till

24.10.2020.

CR-2645-2020 (O&M) and CR-2658-2020 (O&M) 3

It is admitted by both the parties that pursuant to lease deed

dated 9.10.2006, no separate maintenance agreement was executed

between the petitioner and maintenance agency. The only agreement in

writing regarding provision of maintenance services is dated 8.7.2018,

which was executed between M/s Grand Mall Condominium Association

and the third respondent. According to the terms of this agreement, the

maintenance charges were payable by the allottee/occupant of the

premises.

Certain relevant clauses of lease deed dated 9.10.2006 are

reproduced below for ready reference:-

‘Maintenance Service

5.1

The lessee agrees that as a condition for being

granted the lease of the demised premises. It shall excuse a

separate mai