Delhi High Court
Bhawani Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Properties And Anr. on 27 May, 1987
Equivalent citations: 32(1987)DLT397
JUDGMENT C.L. Chaudbry, J.
(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The allegations disclosed inthe plaint are that the defendants were constructing a building on plot No. 7,Masjid Moth Community Centre, New Delhi, which was (2) Along with the suit an application, which is under disposal, has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1&2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.The defendant are contesting the claim of the plaintiff. The written statement and reply to this application has been filed.
(3) It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is not in physical possession of the premises or any part thereof: that the plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands. On the merits the agreement to lease has not been denied. It is stated that as per terms of the agreement otherwise agreed between the parties the possession for limited purpose of the lease was to be given by the defendant No 1 to the plaintiff only after the building had been completed in all respects and the relevant certificate for using the occupation of the said commercial building had been issued by the Competent Authorities including Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, It is further stated that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease in favor of the defendant No 1, the said plot and the building constructed thereupon could not be put to any use or occupation till the legal formalities had been completed, which could not be completed for the reasons beyond the control of defendant No. 1. The time was not the essence of the contract and without completion of the building the plaintiff could not take recourse to any of the terms of the agreement. It is further stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 was paid upon the signing of the agreement and the balance ofRs. 2,50,000.00 was to be paid at the time of possession of the property to the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not paid any amount after the initial payment of Rs, 50,000.00 and also committed the breach of the terms of the agreement. It is further stated that the difficulty for not completing the building was related to labour problems, shortage of cement and also heavyrains. The termination of the agreement is justified.
(4) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter involved.
(5) For the purpose of this application the only thing that is to be seen at the present moment is whether the plaintiff is in possession of any portion of the premises and if so by what. In order to substantiate the plea of possession the plaintiff has placed or record a copy of the letter written to the Stationhouse Officer, Kalkaji, Police Station, dated 16.9.1985 herein it is stated that the plaintiffs have taken possession of the entire first floor of plot No. 7 in Masjid Moth Community Centre, New Delhi, which was leased out to them.Then there is a certificate by the Notary Public dated 21.9.1985. On the request of the plaintiff he visited the first floor of premises No. 7, Masjid Moth Community Centre, New Delhi and found that the building was complete in all respects excepting the window frames and glass panes were to be fixed and no furniture of course was there. There is one certificate from 'SENTINELS'dated 18.9.1985 by which it has been certified that they have been retained by the plaintiff since 16.9.1985 to provide security guards at their premises-FirstFloor, building No. 7, Masjid Moth Community Centre, New Delhi on a round the clock duty.
(6) The defendants are contesting the claim of the plaintiff regardingpossession. According to the defendants the premises are not in physicalpossession of the plaintiff' but they are in possession of 'Jyoti Theatres Pvt.Ltd. and Maya Builders. The agreement of lease does provide that in the event of the defendants failing to complete the construction in all respects and hand over the possession of the premises to the plaintiff on or before 30.7.1985the plaintiff would have the option to take possession of the premises and/or sue This clause the defendants for damages, if the plaintiff so desires. By virtue of This clause the plaintiff is empowered to enter into possession but the plaintiff is required under Clause 4 of the agreement to pay Rs. 2,50.000.00 to the defendant at the time of taking over the possession.
(7) Prima facie, it appears that the plaintiff is in possession of the premises. If the plaintiff is forcibly dispossessed, he is likely to suffer irreparable injury and substantial loss. The balance of convenience is also in favor of the plaintiff and maintaining the status quo. Consequently, the applications allowed. The order dated 27.9.1985 is confirmed and the defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff except in due course of law till the decision of the suit. However, this order is subject to the condition that the plaintiff would deposit Rs.2,50,000.00 in the Court lip to 15.7.1987. I.A. is disposed of.