CM(M)--1738/2019. Case: RATTAN MEHTA & ORS. Vs. GAYATRI SHAH & ANR.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CM(M)--1738/2019 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 06, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 6th December, 2019
+ CM (M) 1738/2019
RATTAN MEHTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. G.P. Thareja & Ms.
Gandharva, Advocates 9811123833)
versus
GAYATRI SHAH & ANR. ..... Responde
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Ruchira Arora
& Mr. Dhananjay Advocates. (M-9811006760)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
-
The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 1st
2019, by which the Plaintiffs’/Respondents’ (hereinafter, ―Plaintiffs
application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC has been allowed by the ld. ADJ.
-
The petition arises out of a suit for possession, mesne profits
damages in respect of a shop located in property bearing No.25-A, CVasant Vihar Market (local shopping Centre-I), New Delhi (
―suit property‖), filed by Smt. Preeti Shah and Smt. Santosh Shah
various Defendants who are part of the same family and one M/s
Caps (P) Ltd.
-
The case of the Plaintiffs is that initially the suit property was
to the Petitioners/Defendants (hereinafter, ―Defendants‖), as per the
deed dated 15th May, 1984 at Rs.1,500/- per month. However, an
sub-tenancy was entered into by the Defendants with M/s Mahima Caps
CM (M) 1738/2019
Ltd., vide agreement dated 15th July, 2004, under which the rent amount
Rs.1 lakh was to be paid as a minimum guaranteed profit/sale proceed.
the strength of this agreement, as well as the judgment of a ld.
Bench of this Court in P.S. Jain Company Ltd. v. Aatma Ram
(P) Ltd, 1997 1 AD (DELHI) 454, a civil suit was preferred before
Civil Court.
-
A copy of the alleged rent agreement, as available with the
was annexed with the plaint. In the written statement, the existence
agreement itself was not challenged, however, the nature of the
was pleaded. The Defendants continued to take the position that the
amount has always been Rs.1,500/- per month.
-
The following issues were framed in the suit on 30th January, 201
―1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff’s is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD 1 and 2.
-
Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as Defendant no.4 is not a necessary party to the suit? OPD 1 and 2.
-
Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by the limitation, principle of estoppel, acquiescence and doctrine of election? OPD 1 and 2.
-
Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from filing the suit, having withdrawn the eviction petition no.E-445/09 which was pending in the court of Sh. Pawan Kumar Rajawat, Ld. ARC, Saket Courts, New Delhi, suit for declaration and injunction vide Suit no.07/12 and M.No.45/11 both titled as Rajeev Shah v. MCD both dismissed vide its order dated 03.09.2015 by the court of Ms. Surya Malik Grover, Ld. SCJ-cum-RC south Saket Courts, New Delhi? OPD 1 and 2.
-
Whether the amount received as monthly minimum guaranteed profit of Rs.1,00,000/- by defendant no.1
CM (M) 1738/2019
and Smt. Anju Mehta (since deceased now represented by defendant no.1 and 3) from defendant no.4 under the agreement dated 15.07.2004, was in the nature of the rent or not? OPP.
-
Whether the plaintiff’s are entitled to a decree of possession of the suit premises in terms of prayer clause (a)? OPP.
-
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.4,75,000/- towards damages for illegal and unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises from 15.10.2015 till the date of filing of the suit, as per prayer clause (b)? OPP.
-
Whether the plaintiff’s are entitled to a decree of mesne profit and damages at the rate of Rs.7,00,000/- per month or illegal and unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises from the date of the suit till handing over of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises in terms of prayer clause (c)? OPP
-
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to award of interest, if so, at what rate? OPP.
-
Relief?‖
-
After the framing of issues, the Plaintiffs moved an application
Order XI Rule 1 CPC seeking discovery of the original rent agreement
original of the agreement dated 15th July, 2004 is in the exclusive possession
of the Defendants. In reply to the said application, the Defendants
deny having possession of the rent agreement, however, they took the
that the original of the said document would speak for itself. Under
circumstances, the application was heard by the ld. Trial Court. The
was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 1st August, 2019,
following terms:
―5. I have heard rival contentions of parties and perused the record in the light of relevant statutory provisions of Order XI of CPC.
CM (M) 1738/2019
-
Looking into the contents of written statement and in particular the preliminary objections taken by the Defendants, version of Defendants is that the Plaintiff No.2 and her husband had inducted, by an unregistered lease deed dated 15.05.1984, the Defendant No.1 and Late Smt. Anju Mehta, mother of Defendant No.1 as tenant at the suit premises for a monthly rent of Rs.l500/- per month for running a Restaurant. Written statement further mentions that the Defendants are paying rent regularly to the landlord since beginning of the tenancy. It further mentions that the Plaintiffs refused to accept the rent sent to them by a money order in the month of November 2015 and the same has been deposited in the Court.
-
The written statement further mentions that Defendants are running a restaurant M/s Mini Mahal since the year 1984. It states that the alleged subletting cannot be looked into by the Court after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial