Delhi District Court
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd vs TeeEm Builders Pvt. Ltd on 1 December, 2013
TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI J.P.S. MALIK : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE04 :
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS. NO. 224/10
In the matter of :
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. .....Plaintiff
Versus
TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd. ....Defendant
Order
1.This is an application U/o VII Rule 11 CPC read with section 151 CPC dated 18.03.09, moved by the defendant for rejection of the plaint filed.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction and case of the plaintiff is that a Lease Deed dated 26.12.05 was entered into between plaintiff, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. and defendant TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd. in regard to property bearing no. B333, Asiad Village Complex, New Delhi for use and occupation as residence of Senior General Manager of the plaintiff company, namely Sh. Sreekantan K. Nair. The lease was initially for a period of three years commencing 01.01.06 and expiring on 31.12.08. Rent reserved was 45,000/ per month for two years and Rs. CS. No. 224/10 Page 1 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
49,500/ per month during the third year. Much in advance of the expiry of the lease, the plaintiff company communicated to review the lease for a further period of 3 years, commencing from 01.01.09 and apart from verbal communications, letter dated 07.11.08 was also sent by the plaintiff company. It has been claimed that by virtue of Clause no. 1 of Lease Deed dated 26.12.05, the plaintiff is entitled at its sole discretion, to seek renewal of the Lease for further period of 3 years effective 01.01.09.
Clause 1 of the Lease Deed dated 26.12.05 reads as under:
"1. The LESSOR hereby agrees to demise unto the LESSEE the premises together with all fixtures and appurtenances thereto to hold unto the LESSEE for a term of 3 years from 1st day of January, 2006 to that 31st day of December 2008 with an option for the LESSEE to renew the lease for a further period of 3 years on mutually agreed terms and conditions."
The letter dated 07.11.08 was not replied to by the defendant. When execution of Lease Deed was being delayed, plaintiff company served a notice to renew in writing dated 26.12.08 and in reply to said notice dated 26.12.08 defendant vide reply dated 01.01.09 declined to enter into CS. No. 224/10 Page 2 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
a fresh Lease in terms of the 'Agreement to Lease Clause 1'. Defendant also addressed letter dated 07.01.09 asking the plaintiff to vacate the premises. The plaintiff is seeking a decree for specific performance of agreement to lease as per Clause 1 of Lease Deed dated 26.12.05. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that notice dated 07.01.09 given by the defendant to the plaintiff to vacate the premises as void, nonest and illegal. Further seeking a decree of mandatory injunction for execution of the Lease Deed and then a decree for permanent injunction, restraining plaintiff in any way disturbing the peaceful use and enjoyment of the premises.
3. Application U/o VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed by the defendant on the ground that the Lease Deed dated 26.12.05 purports to be for a period of three years and same is on a Stamp Paper of only Rs. 100. Lease Deed is also not registered. It has been claimed on behalf of the defendant that since the Lease Deed is neither a registered document nor written on requisite Stamp Paper, same is avoid document and not admissible in law. It is the case of the defendant that suit being for specific performance, declaration and mandatory injunction, cannot be based on a void document, not admissible in law and so, the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit on terms of said Lease Deed. It has also been claimed that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff CS. No. 224/10 Page 3 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
for filing a suit for permanent injunction, since defendant never gave any threat to the plaintiff of its forcible dispossession and service of notice dated 07.01.09 by the defendant on the plaintiff does not give rise to any cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction.
4. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The stand taken on behalf of the plaintiff is that defendant is a dissolved and non existence company w.e.f. 22.03.08 and such findings has already been returned by the court vide order dated 05.10.09. It is claimed that defendant no more a juristic person, capable of suing or being sued. It is claimed that defendant is no more a landlord and has no locus to resist the suit of the plaintiff. Further, it is stated that plaint cannot be rejected in part and since present suit is not only a suit for specific performance but a comprehensive suit seeking relief of specific performance, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. On merits, it is stated that agreement dated 26.12.05 is not a Lease Deed and is only a executory agreement. Plaintiff has denied that such a document required registration compulsorily.
5. Arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties. CS. No. 224/10 Page 4 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
6. On behalf of defendant, reliance has been placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Sh. Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagan Nath etc. 1976, Rajdhani Law Reporter 607, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a suit between landlord and tenant, question of title is irrelevant and tenant is estopped from questioning landlord's title. It is in reference to the objections being taken on behalf of the plaintiff to the application moved, that defendant is no more a juristic person having been dissolved w.e.f. 22.03.08. There is a order dated 10.09.09 passed in the matter by the court vide which an application U/o I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC moved by the plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff had challenged the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before Hon'ble High Court and order dated 05.11.09 was passed in the matter by Hon'ble High Court. It was held by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 05.11.09 that defendant company shall continue to be the landlord qua the petitioner till the Government/ Union of India takes over possession from the defendant of the suit property. It is not reported by other party that there had been any charge in the status of the suit premises since passing of the order dated 05.11.09 and so, it cannot be said that defendant has no locus standi to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff company and the application U/o VII Rule 11 CPC moved by the defendant, is liable to be rejected on that count alone.
CS. No. 224/10 Page 5 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
7. As regards the rejection of the plaint filed on the ground that it is based on terms and conditions as per a Lease Deed, which has not been registered as per the Registration Act, reliance has been placed on behalf of the defendant on a case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Anil Raj Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Anand International India and Ors., 2009 XAD(Delhi) 465, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the relief of specific performance could not be granted on the basis of unregistered Lease Deed.
8. On behalf of the defendant, reliance has also been placed on another matter decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court M/s. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Sh. Chiranjiv Lal Sharma VOL. CXX(19983) Punjab Law Reporter 58. The facts in the said case were that property was taken on rent by the plaintiff for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 01.05.89 after executing an unregistered indenture of Lease dated 01.12.79. There was a Renewal Clause of the lease constituting an agreement in writing to lease the property in the suit and plaintiff claimed specific performance on that contract. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 10, of the judgment held as under:
"In my opinion, the unregistered lease deed dated 1st December, 1979 is clearly inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act is not applicable to the CS. No. 224/10 Page 6 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
present case inasmuch as the terms of the lese are not "collateral purpose within its meaning (Satish Chand v. Govardhan Das, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 143). Consequently, I hold that the renewal clause of the agreement dated 01.12.1979 being a term of an inadmissible document could not form the basis of the present suit for specific performance of contract."
9. On behalf of the plaintiff, reliance was placed on a case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta titled as Prem Nath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aloka Dam in F.A. No. 87 of 1982 decided on 14.05.98, wherein it was held in Para 28 of the judgment that where a compulsorily registrable agreement is not registered but has been acted upon, it is binding on the parties, though the agreement is inadmissible in evidence.
10. Plaintiff has also relied upon a case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Sh. Arvindra Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Hardayal Kaur & Ors. Vide I.A. No. 725/04 in CS(OS) No. 962/04 decided on 31.01.2005 The facts of the case were that plaintiff claimed to be the owner by virtue of an unregistered and deficiently stamped document of agreement to claim his title to the property. It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that defendant might be correct to say that plaintiff cannot sue under CS. No. 224/10 Page 7 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
the Agreement to Sell in question for the simple reason that said document having been executed after amendment to the Registration Act, 1908, required registration and not being registered, plaintiff cannot rely upon Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. But is was finally held that plaint cannot be rejected at that stage for the reason that plaintiff was pleading actual possession of the suit property and despite the legal consequences of the agreement in question, being not registered, the defendants were bound to take recourse to procedure established by law, to regain possession.
11. Plaintiff has also relied upon another case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. Opal Metal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2009 Delhi 1, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 12 held as under:
In the present case, the defendant invokes clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, CPC which mandates that a plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The law as to the exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC is well settled. It has been held that there cannot be any segregation and dissection of the cause of action or of the various paragraphs in the plaint and that the entire plaint as exists CS. No. 224/10 Page 8 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
on the record has to be considered and not any particular plea tkaen therein. [Refer Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill (1982) 3 SCC 487 : (AIR 1982 SC 1559). It is not permissible to cull out a sentence and to read it out of the context in isolation (Refer M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Yanesh Property, 1998 (7) SCC 184 : (AIR 1998 SC 3085) and Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510). It has been held that while dealing with the application under O. 7. R.11, CPC the question which is to be decided is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something illusionary has been stated (I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 1998 (2) SCC 70: (AIR 1998 SC 634).
Further in Para 16, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:
It is a different matter as to whether or not the plaintiff will be able to sustain the action, as sustainability of the action shall depend on the evidence led in the case.
12. On behalf of the plaintiff, reliance has also been placed on another matter decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Rita Khurana Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors 1998 II AD (Delhi) 745, wherein after observing that there are two strong current of thoughts on the interpretation of Section CS. No. 224/10 Page 9 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
49 of the Registration Act, one point of view being that Section 17 of the Registration Act requires registration of Agreement of Lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent and Section 49 of the Registration Act provides the effect of nonregistration of documents which are required to be registered, U/s 17 of the Registration Act and the document which is compulsorily registrable and is not so registered, cannot affect any immovable property comprised therein. In a nutshell, such a document will be inoperative in law. Second point of view being that court is competent to decree the suit directing the document to be registered by the SubRegistrar, if it is duly presented for registration within 30 days after passing of such a decree. Registration Act, itself provides the procedure to secure registration of documents and it also permits a suit to be filed in a Civil Court for a decree directing that the unregistered document be registered. The matter was referred for interpretation of Section 49 of the Registration Act read with Section 17 thereto and Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act for a decision by the Full Bench of the Court. It was informed by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that there had been no decision of the Full Bench, as yet on the reference made.
13. So far, the legal position existing today is as enunciated in the decision CS. No. 224/10 Page 10 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Anil Raj Electronics Enterprises (Supra) and M/s. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. (Supra). The suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance in terms of condition in the Lease Agreement dated 26.12.05 as per Clause 1, is not maintainable and said Lease Agreement is clearly inadmissible in evidence U/s 49 of the Registration Act. A void document cannot be a basis of the suit for specific performance or declaration to the extent the suit filed, is seeking specific performance of execution of fresh lease in terms of Clause 1 of the said agreement. No cause of action is disclosed for the plaintiff to institute the same against the defendant.
14. As regards the contention on behalf of the plaintiff company that it was a comprehensive suit filed, by the plaintiff seeking the relief of the declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction, apart from relief of specific performance, as per the original plaint filed, the other relief relates to passing of a declaration for declaring the notice dated 07.01.09 of the defendant to the plaintiff to vacate the premises (Prayer b) the said relief of declaration is being sought by the plaintiff only for the reason that there is a Clause 1 in the Lease Deed dated 26.12.05, because of which, the plaintiff is entitled for renewal of the Lease in its favour and indirectly the basis for seeking the said declaration also flows from Clause 1 of the Lease Deed dated 26.12.05. Prayer c is for a decree of CS. No. 224/10 Page 11 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
mandatory injunction and that is for execution of Lease Deed as prayed in Prayer (a) which is for a decree for specific performance of agreement to lease which is same as under prayer a and as such no cause of action is disclosed in favour of the plaintiff for the said relief of mandatory injunction for renewal of Lease Deed, since the Lease Deed itself is inadmissible in evidence.
15. Prayer (d) is for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using any coercive measure and disturbing the peaceful use and enjoyment of the premises or to cause eviction without due process of law. The cause of action for the plaintiff for seeking the said relief, is stated in Para 18 of the plaint filed, where it is stated interalia that cause of action arose on all days after 7.01.09, when defendant has insinuated using coercive and illegal method to evict the plaintiff from the said premises without due process of law. A copy of the letter dated 07.01.09 has been placed on record by the plaintiff and it is a simple letter which reads as under:
"Dear Sir, We acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 6th January 2009, and received on 7th January 2009. Please note that we are not agreeable for renewing the Lease as suggested by you. The rent which is CS. No. 224/10 Page 12 of 13 TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
being credited to our account does not mean that we have accepted your offer.
Therefore, please handover the keys and the vacant possession of the house immediately.
Thanking you,"
16. It is a letter in response to letter dated 06.01.09 of the plaintiff, wherein it is stated that defendants are not agreeable for renewing of the Lease and had asked the plaintiffs to giving vacant possession of the house. There is no insinuation whatsoever in the letter dated 07.01.09 of the defendants intending to take possession of the premises without due process of law. Letter dated 07.01.09, disclose no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. In this way the suit filed by the plaintiff is not a comprehensive suit seeking different reliefs which can be proved independently of each other. Infact, all the reliefs being claimed by plaintiff flow from the said Lease agreement dated 26.12.05.
17. As such, it is held that the plaint filed disclose no cause of action against the defendant and same is dismissed U/o VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Announced in the open Court (J.P.S. MALIK)
on 01.02.2013 ADJ04 : SOUTH DISTRICT
All pages signed NEW DELHI
CS. No. 224/10 Page 13 of 13
TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
CS. No. 224/10
01.02.2013
Present: None.
Vide separate order of the date, the application U/o VII Rule 11 CPC moved by the plaintiff dated 18.03.09 read with section 151 CPC is allowed and the plaint filed is rejected U/o VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
File be consigned to record room.
(J.P.S. MALIK) ADJ04 : SOUTH DISTRICT NEW DELHI : 01.02.2013 CS. No. 224/10 Page 14 of 13