CS(OS) No. 1019/2009

Page 1 of 54

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on:

27.08.2013

%

Judgment delivered on:

17.12.2013

+

CS(OS) No. 1019/2009 and I.A. No. 5351/2011

DR. SHASHI RANJAN GUPTA

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, Mr. Mehul

Gupta & Mr. Sandeep Kaushik,

Advocates.

versus

M/S SPRAYLAC PAINTS CORPORATION

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr.

Sudhanshu

Batra,

Senior

Advocate along with Ms. Kamlesh

Mahajan, Advocate for defendant

No.1.

Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocate for

defendant No.2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1.

The two plaintiffs, namely, Dr. Shashi Ranjan Gupta and Mr. Sunil

Kumar Gupta, have filed the present suit to seek a declaration that defendant

No. 1 – M/s Spraylac Paints Corporation – a partnership firm of four

partners – who are named in the memo of parties (hereinafter referred to as

2013:DHC:6497

CS(OS) No. 1019/2009

Page 2 of 54

„Spraylac‟) has impliedly surrendered the lease in respect of premises

bearing Municipal No. M-42, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, having an

approximate area of 1000 sq. feet on the ground floor and a portion of

mezzanine floor with unrestricted use of mezzanine and joint toilets and

back door entrance with the other tenants of premises bearing No. M-43

[hereinafter referred to as the, “suit property”] more particularly shown and

described in the site plan (Exhibit „PW1/1‟). Alternatively, the plaintiffs

have sought a decree for ejectment/recovery of possession against defendant

Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs also seek a decree

for recovery of money towards unpaid arrears of property tax dues

amounting to Rs. 13,97,153/- as on 31.03.2009. A decree of mandatory

injunction has also been sought to direct defendant No. 1 to pay to the

plaintiffs, or deposit with the court, the refundable security deposit received

from defendant No. 2, which would be paid to defendant No. 2 at the time of

vacation of the suit property by defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs pray for

pendente lite and future use and occupation charges @ Rs. 2.50 lacs per

month against defendant No. 2, till such time defendant No. 2 hands over

vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs or enters into

a fresh arrangement in respect thereof with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs pray

for interest @ 18% per annum on the accrued pendente lite and future use

and occupation charges till such time the amount is paid. A prayer for costs

has also been made by the plaintiffs.

2.

The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 – Spraylac is a

partnership firm having four partners, namely, Mr. Kapil Bhasin, Mr. Rajiv

Maira, Mr. Rahul Bhasin and Mr. Rohan Maira. Defendant No. 1 was a

2013:DHC:6497

CS(OS) No. 1019/2009

Page 3 of 54

lessee of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, on a monthly rent of Rs.

159.46. Defendant No. 2 – M/s Dominos Pizza India Ltd. („Dominos‟ for

short) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The

plaintiffs state that they permitted defendant No. 1 to induct defendant No. 2

– company as a sub-tenant in respect of the entire suit property on a monthly

rent of Rs. 1,22,000/- under an Agreement dated 01.06.1996. Though the

plaintiff‟s witness PW1 Dr Shashi Ranjan Gupta has sought to exhibit the

said agreement dated 01.06.1996 as Exh. PW1/2 in his examination in chief,

only a photocopy of the said agreement has been filed. However, the

defendants have not denied the execution of the said agreement in response

to para 4 of the plaint – wherein the plaintiffs have averred regarding the

execution of the said agreement and annexed the same as Annexure P-2 to

the plaint. Even during arguments, the defendants have not questioned the

admissibility of the said agreement. Accordingly, the copy of the agreement

dated 01.06.1996 (Ex PW1/2) is admissib