Delhi District Court
M/S Yaduvanshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd vs Sh. Arun Ahuja on 6 August, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC/ARC No. 25857/2016
Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja
M/s Yaduvanshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd
Through its Director
Ch. Mohinder Yadav
Having registered office at :
Unit no. 3, Second Floor
Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex
Jwalaheri, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi
.... Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Arun Ahuja
S/o Sh. M.G. Ahuja
At Shop No. 57, First Floor
Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex
4, Jwalaheri Market, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
Also At:-
B-3B/61A, MIG Flats
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 15.04.2014
Date of reserving Judgment : 15.07.2020
Date of decision : 06.08.2020
Final Decision : Petition dismissed
RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
(Eviction petition u/s 14 (1)(a), (d), (f) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act)
1. The present eviction petition under section 14 (1)(a), (d), (f) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") was filed by M/s Yaduvanshi Real Estate Pvt Ltd through its Director Ch. Mohinder Yadav (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") against Sh. Arun Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") in respect of Shop no. 57, First Floor, Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex, 4, Jwalaheri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 (approximately measuring 99 sq. ft.) (hereinafter, referred to as "tenanted premises") as shown in red colour in the site plan.
FACTS:
2. Succinctly stated, the case of petitioner is that the respondent was inducted as tenant in respect of tenanted shop on 01.03.1989 for commercial purposes. The shop in question is bounded as under:-
North : 6' common passage South : Shop No. 59 East : Shop No. 65 West : 8' common passage
3. It is averred that a Rent Deed dated 01.03.1989 was executed between the parties at the time of inception of tenancy and the rate of rent was fixed at a monthly rent of Rs. 375 per month excluding electricity and RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 2 of 19 other charges. It is stated that respondent lastly paid the rent and electricity charges vide Cheque No. 732530 dated 22.11.2011 amounting to Rs.10,125/- with assurance that he would pay the balance rent and future rent as per market value prevailing in the area. After adjusting the same, the respondent has allegedly not paid the rent w.e.f 22.11.2011 upto 31.12.2013. It is alleged that respondent has violated Clause-17 of the Rent Deed and has not paid the house tax in respect of the tenanted shop since commencement of tenancy, which amounts to Rs. 12,496/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. (for the period 1987-88 to 31.03.2004) and Rs. 7,810/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. (for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.12.2013). It is further alleged that the respondent has violated Clause-19 of the Rent deed which envisaged respondent to not close the shop for more than 2 months, however, the said shop had been lying locked for the last more than 2 years prior to filing of present petition.
4. It is asserted that Section 14 (1)(d) of DRC Act is equally applicable to the commercial tenancies, as the concept of creating tenancy in any premises is based on the usefulness of the tenanted premises and if the same is not used continuously for more than 6 months, in that event the tenancy stands to be terminated and the tenant is liable to hand over the vacant, physical and peaceful possession to the landlord. It is further asserted that respondent has also violated the provisions of Section 14(1)(f) of DRC Act as the shop had been lying locked for more than 2 years continuously prior to filing of the present petition, for which reason, premises has become unsafe, unfit for human habitation as extensive danger had already been caused inside the shop which had resulted in structural damage to the entire shopping complex.
RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 3 of 19
5. It is averred that respondent has deliberately not been paying rent to the petitioner as he has no intention to carry out business in the tenanted shop and he is holding the premises in question in order to extract huge money from the petitioner. It is pointed out that there are 80 shops on the first floor of the complex where premises in question is situated and petitioner is maintaining the entire area by employing official staff, watchman, sweepers, electricians and has been paying electricity charges, water charges and also maintaining the common toilet, corridors and gallery etc. At the time of execution of Rent Deed, respondent agreed to pay the maintenance charges when applicable. Hence, respondent is liable to pay the maintenance charges of Rs. 36,489/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. It is stated that petitioner sent a legal demand notice dated 25.01.2014 to the respondent calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent and also to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of tenanted premises, but in vain. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a),
(d), (f) and (j) of DRC ACt seeking following reliefs:-
(a) pass a decree of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.10,500/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Five Hundred only) along with interest @ 18% per annum;
(b) pass a decree of arrears on account of House Tax, already paid by petitioner i.e. Rs. 7,810/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Ten only) along with interest @ 18% per annum;
(c) pass a decree of arrears of House Tax amounting to Rs. 12,496/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Six only) which is proposed to be paid on the basis of unit area method upto 2004;
RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 4 of 19
(d) pass a decree of arrears of maintenance, ward and watch charges etc. amounting to Rs. 36,489/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine only) along with interest @ 18% per annum;
(e) pass a decree of Eviction of respondent from the tenanted shop i.e. Shop No. 57 at first floor in Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex, Jwalaheri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi;
(f) pass a decree of damages/unlawful use and occupation charges to the tune of Rs. 12,375/- per month to the petitioner w.e.f. 28.02.2014 being damages/unlawful use and occupation charges as prevailing in the vicinity as on date, after termination of his tenancy vide legal notice mentioned herein above;
(g) to direct the respondents to hand over physical and vacant possession of the tenanted shop (measuring 99 sq. ft.), i.e. Shop No. 57 at First floor, in Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex, Jwalaheri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, which is in the exclusive ownership/landlordship of the petitioner and to pass an eviction order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
6. Notice of the petition was duly served upon the respondent and he filed the written statement on 29.01.2015. Vide his written statement, respondent denied the case of petitioner on most of the aspects. He averred that petitioner is not the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and that he has no locus standi to file the present petition; that the petitioner is seeking relief of declaration of title of tenanted shop and only civil court RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 5 of 19 has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the title of such immovable property; that this court has no jurisdiction to try the present petition as provisions of DRC Act are not applicable to the area where premises in question is situated; that Sh. Mohinder Yadav is not the Director of M/s Yaduvanshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd and is not empowered or authorized to file the present petition.
7. It is stated by respondent that tenanted shop is situated at Jwalaheri Market, Paschim Vihar, but not at Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex, as alleged by petitioner. It is further stated that the tenanted shop is built on plot no. 4, out of Khasra no. 43, extended abadi, situated in the area of Jwalaheri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063, which was earlier an open plot meant for development of roads, railways and other public services as per "Khatauni" issued by the concerned Tehsildar of the area during 1978-79 which status even as on date is same. Respondent admitted that he was inducted as tenant in respect of a tenanted shop in question by petitioner but after accepting huge pagri/premium. He further admitted that he had been paying rent of the tenanted premises to the petitioner but, he never showed any title documents qua the premises in question.
8. It is averred that after the death of other counter claimant of the tenanted shop namely, Sh. Narender Yadav in December 2012, the shop became a subject matter of dispute amongst his legal heirs and other alleged claimants including petitioner. It is further averred that respondent came to know in the year 2014, that the tenanted shop does not belong either to the petitioner or his alleged predecessor or Sh. Narender Yadav, as the same is vested with/owned by the Government of Delhi, whose officials were RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 6 of 19 coming on and off to the property in question for inspection and survey and intimated the occupiers that the property is vested with Delhi Government. Respondent asserted that the tenanted shop is the source of daily bread for him and his family and as such, the question of keeping the premises locked does not arise. He claimed that he had been continuously using the premises in question for his business.
9. While, respondent admitted the rate of rent of tenanted premises as Rs. 375/- per month, he claimed that the same was inclusive of electricity and exclusive of other charges. Respondent further denied any liability to pay house tax in respect of the tenanted premises as there was no privity of contract to this effect. He also claimed, that no alleged rent agreement/ deed dated 01.03.1989 was ever executed or signed by the respondent in favour of petitioner. It is averred by the respondent that the site plan filed by petitioner is incorrect. It is further averred that the tenancy of respondent was oral and as such, the question of alleged violation of any clause of the alleged agreement/rent deed does not arise. The respondent is the contractual tenant in the suit premises and his tenancy had never been terminated as alleged. It is asserted that no legal demand notice dated 25.01.2014 was ever received by the respondent and that the present petition has been filed by petitioner malafidely and thus, liable to be dismissed.
10. Replication was filed by the petitioner to the reply/written statement filed on behalf of respondent, whereby he denied the assertions and claims made in the written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of his eviction petition. The matter thereafter, proceeded for RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 7 of 19 petitioner's evidence.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE:
11. Petitioner examined Ch. Mohinder Yadav as PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of eviction petition and relied upon the following documents as under:
(i) Ex. PW-1/1 : Notice dated 25.01.2014 (ii) Ex. PW-1/2 : Postal Receipt (iii) Ex. PW-1/3 : Speed Post receipt (iv) Ex. PW-1/4 : Rent Receipt (v) Ex. PW-1/5 : Envelop returned to petitioner's counsel (vi) Ex. PW-1/6 : Site plan (vii) Ex. PW-1/7 : Original Rent Deed (viii) Ex. PW-1/8 : Extract of Resolution of petitioner company
PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. During cross-examination petitioner denied the suggestion that there is no minutes book pertaining to resolution Ex. PW-1/8 and that Ex. PW-1/8 is a forged and fabricated document. He stated that monthly rent of tenanted premises is Rs. 375/- exclusive of electricity charges and that respondent has his own electricity connection in the premises. He admitted that he never received any notice from MCD or NDMC regarding the structure or status of the suit property and that he is not aware of condition of tenanted premises from inside.
RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 8 of 19
12. Petitioner also examined Sh. Yogesh Sharma as PW-2 who tendered his evidence vide his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. However, before he could be cross-examined, Ld. Counsel for petitioner closed petitioner's evidence vide separate statement dated 08.07.2019. Thereafter, matter was listed for respondent's evidence.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
13. Respondent examined himself as RW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. RW-1/A. RW-1 was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. During cross-examination, RW-1 stated that he has not seen any order vide which suit property is vested with Gaon Sabha. He stated that he came to know about the said fact in the year 2014 from the shopkeepers/other tenants in the suit property. He further stated that he had not visited the office of Revenue Authority and had not tried to inquire about the details of suit property. He further stated that he did not remember till which date he had paid rent to the petitioner. He also admitted that the suit premises was let out to him by petitioner. No other witness was examined by respondent on his behalf and vide his separate statement dated 04.02.2020, respondent's evidence was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
14. The matter thereafter, proceeded for final arguments. Final arguments were addressed by both the parties through video conferencing facility during lockdown restrictions. I have gone through the record RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 9 of 19 carefully.
FINDINGS AND REASONS:
Section 14(1) (d), (f) and (j) of DRC Act
15. It is pertinent to note that during the course of final arguments on 26.06.2020, Ld. Counsel for petitioner fairly conceded that one of the ground for eviction of tenanted premises under Section 14 (1)(d) of DRC Act, as claimed in the eviction petition, is not applicable in the present case. Even otherwise, the tenanted premises is admittedly a shop let out to respondent for 'commercial purposes'. Thus, Section 14(1)(d) of DRC Act would not be applicable to the present case, as an order for recovery of possession of premises in respect of clause (d) can only be passed qua premises let out for 'residential purposes'.
16. So far as, prayers made by the petitioner for eviction of tenanted premises under Section 14 (1)(f) & (j) of DRC Act are concerned, it was categorically stated by Ld. Counsel for petitioner during the course of final arguments on 26.06.2020 that, the petitioner does not wish to press his claims for eviction under Section 14 (1)(f) & (j) of DRC Act. An email dated 13.07.2020, to this effect, has also been received on the dedicated email ID of this Court from Ld. Counsel for petitioner. In view of the same, prayers made in the eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(f) & (j) of DRC Act stood dropped vide order dated 15.07.2020.
Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 10 of 19
17. In order to seek eviction on the ground under Section 14(1)
(a) of DRC Act, petitioner has to prove the following ingredients:
(i) That there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) Rate of rent;
(iii) That there were arrears of legally recoverable rent at the time of issuance of legal demand notice;
(iv) That a valid legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent; and
(v) That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of date of receipt of legal demand notice.
18. Let us deal with the ingredients mentioned above one by one.
19. (i) That there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
19.1 It is the case of petitioner that the tenanted shop had been let out to the respondent for commercial purposes vide rent deed dated 01.03.1989. The respondent vide paragraphs no. 3 (a), 3 (b), 4, 5 and 11 of written statement/ reply clearly admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, he stated that no alleged rent agreement/deed dated 01.03.1989 had ever been executed between the parties. He further stated that petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises, as the same is constructed on a plot which is owned/vested with Delhi Government.
RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 11 of 19 19.2 It is trite to say that for the purposes of deciding petition under Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, question of title of tenanted premises cannot be looked into. Since, the respondent has categorically admitted the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also the fact of deposition of rent qua premises in question to the petitioner, the contention raised by him that petitioner is not the owner of the premises is of no consequence. The first ingredient, thus, stands duly established.
20. (ii) Rate of rent;
20.1 PW-1 has deposed during his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/A that the tenanted premises had been let out by petitioner to respondent vide rent deed dated 01.03.1989 @ rent of Rs. 375/- per month excluding electricity and other charges. In support of his case, PW-1 relied upon original rent deed Ex. PW 1/7 and copy of rent receipt for the months of May and June, 2000 which is Ex. PW 1/4. While, respondent admitted in paragraph no. 11 of his written statement/reply that monthly rent of tenanted premises is Rs. 375/-, it was claimed that the same was inclusive of electricity and exclusive of other charges. Respondent further took contradictory stand in his written statement/reply at paragraph no. 18(4) where he stated that monthly rent of tenanted premises is Rs. 500/- per month including electricity and other charges.
20.2 Suffice it to say, rent agreement dated 01.03.1989 Ex. PW 1/7 clearly provides that the tenanted premises had been let out by the petitioner to respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 375/- excluding all other charges. Moreover, PW-1 during cross-examination deposed that respondent has his RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 12 of 19 own electricity connection in the tenanted premises, to which no contrary suggestion was put by Ld. Counsel for respondent. In these circumstances, it can be concluded on preponderance of probabilities that the rate of rent of tenanted premises is Rs. 375/- per month excluding electricity and other charges.
21. (iii) That there were arrears of legally recoverable rent at the time of issuance of legal demand notice;
and,
(iv) That a valid legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent;
21.1 The above ingredients are taken up together as they are inter- connected and for sake of brevity. It is the case of petitioner that respondent lastly paid rent of the tenanted premises vide cheque no. 732530 dated 22.11.2011 amounting to Rs. 10,125/- and has not paid the rent thereafter. It is further the case of petitioner that respondent was in the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 9,750/- at the time of issuance of legal demand notice dated 25.01.2014 which is Ex. PW 1/1.
21.2 Respondent denied having paid the rent vide cheque no. 732530 dated 22.11.2011 in his reply/written statement. He further claimed that he has been regularly paying the rent to the petitioner qua tenanted premises. No rent receipt is though brought on record by the respondent in support of his avernments. Moreover, during cross-examination, respondent/RW-1 stated as under:
"... I may have paid the rent to the petitioner once or RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 13 of 19 twice after the year 2014, but I do not exactly remember. I do not remember till which date I have paid the rent to the petitioner. It is correct that the suit premises was let out to me by petitioner..."
21.3 It is well settled that in the cases involving the ground of default in payment of the rent, the onus to show payment lies on the tenant. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Raghubir Prasad v. Rajendra Kumar Gurudev, 1993(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 234, wherein it was observed as under:
"... Mere oral testimony is not sufficient in this connection for discharging this heavy onus. A tenant alleging that the rent was paid but no receipt was issued by the landlord, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever for not sending the rent by postal money order, cannot be deemed to have discharged the heavy burden which stands cast upon him in this regard. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Madan Mohan v. Krishna Kumar Sood, reported in 1993 (1) JT 162: (1993 AIR-SCW 743), whatever protection the Rent Acts give they do not give blanket protection for 'non payment of rent'. This basic minimum has to be complied with by the tenant. The Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he could continue to enjoy the same without the payment of the rent..."
21.4 The respondent clearly failed to discharge his onus in the present case and did not bring any cogent evidence to show payment of rent qua tenanted premises from the period 22.11.2011 to 25.01.2014. Thus, it is found that respondent was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 9,750/- at the time of issuance of legal demand notice.
21.5 So far as service of legal demand notice dated 25.01.2014 is concerned, it is deposed by PW- 1 that the said notice was duly served by the petitioner upon respondent through registered AD, courier and speed RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 14 of 19 post at the same address of the respondent as that mentioned in the eviction petition (which included address of the tenanted premises). The postal receipts qua service of legal demand notice are duly proved as Ex. PW 1/2, Ex. PW 1/3 and Ex. PW 1/5. Although, the respondent has questioned the service of legal demand notice, he has not denied the postal addresses mentioned on the same. Thus, in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the respondent is deemed to have been served with the legal demand notice Ex. PW 1/1.
22. (v) That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of date of receipt of legal demand notice.
22.1 It is deposed by PW-1 that respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months from the date of receipt of legal demand notice dated 25.01.2014. In lieu of findings qua ingredient no. (iv), it is clear that legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent. Nothing credible is brought on record by the respondent to show payment of rent of tenanted premises to the petitioner after service of legal demand notice and prior to filing of present eviction petition. Thus, this ingredient also stands established by the petitioner.
23. The necessary ingredients of Section 14 (1)(a) of DRC Act are thus, established on record by the petitioner. It is though pertinent to note that respondent had raised a vital contention that the present eviction petition has not been properly instituted and Ch. Mohinder Yadav was not duly empowered or authorized to file the petition in hand on behalf of RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 15 of 19 petitioner company. To buttress his contentions, Ld. Counsel for respondent relied upon the judgments of M/s Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 Delhi 25 and Escorts Limited v. Sai Auto Ltd., 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporters 430.
24. It is the admitted position of facts that M/s Yaduvanshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. is the actual landlord of tenanted premises and Ch. Mohinder Yadav had filed the present petition on its behalf, being Director/authorized representative of aforesaid company. In support of his case, petitioner placed on record a resolution passed at the meeting of Board of Directors of petitioner's company held on 10.01.2014, vide which Ch. Mohinder Yadav had been authorized to institute present eviction petition. The same is Ex. PW 1/8.
25. Per contra, it is contended by the respondent that the abovesaid resolution is not a proper document as the same is not signed by all the Directors of company. The same is notably only signed by Ch. Mohinder Yadav, appointing himself as authorized representative to institute eviction petition on behalf of petitioner's company. It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioner failed to bring the Minutes book pertaining to aforesaid resolution despite specific question being put to PW-1 during cross-examination.
26. In the case of Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Observer Publication Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No.469 of 1966 decided on 26.11.1968), while dealing with the scope of Order 29 CPC, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that Order 29 CPC does not entitle the RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 16 of 19 principal officer of a company to file a suit on its behalf and that authority has to be found either in the Articles of Association of the company or in the resolution of its Board Directors. In the Articles of Association of several companies, provision is generally made authorizing their Managing Directors and other officers to file and defend suits on their behalf. Similarly, the Board of Directors of a company can authorize the institution of a suit on behalf of the company by a resolution.
27. Further, in the case of M/s Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 Delhi 25, it was held that Order 29, Rule 1 of CPC does not authorize persons mentioned therein to institute suits on behalf of the corporation. It only authorizes them to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. The relevant extract of the present judgment is reproduced as under:
"... It is well-settled that under Section 291 of the Companies Act except where express provision is made that the powers of a company in respect of a particular matter are to be exercised by the company in general meeting, in all other cases the board of directors are entitled to exercise all its powers. Individual directors have such powers only as are vested in them by the memorandum and articles. It is true that ordinarily the court will not unsuit a person on account of technicalities. However, the question of authority to institute a suit on behalf of a company is not a technical matter. It has far-reaching effects. It often affects the policy and finances of the company. Thus , unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on a particular director, he has no authority to institute a suit on behalf of the company. Needless to say such a power can be conferred by the board of directors only by passing a resolution in that regard...
"... Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules deals with the question of presentation of suits.
RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 17 of 19 Under this rule, a suit can be presented by a duly authorized agent or by an advocate duly appointed by him for the purpose. This authorization, in my view, in the case of a company can be given only after a decision to institute a suit is taken by the board of directors of the company. Th board of directors may in turn authorize a particular director, principal officer or the secretary to institute a suit..."
28. Also, in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. Sai Autos & Others 42(1990) DLT 446, it was held that the only way to prove that a particular resolution was passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of a company is that the minutes book in which the said resolution was recorded as having been passed should be produced in court as that alone can form evidence of the fact that such a resolution was passed.
29. In the present case, petitioner has relied upon extract of Board of Resolution dated 16.01.2014 i.e. Ex. PW 1/8 to prove that the present eviction petition has been duly instituted by Ch. Mohinder Yadav, who is Director of petitioner company. However, the said resolution has not been proved in accordance with law by bringing before the Court the minutes book of the meeting of Board of Directors. Ld. Counsel for respondent objected to the mode of proof of Board Resolution Ex. PW 1/8 at the time of its tendering by PW-1. Moreover, despite question being put on this aspect to the witness PW-1, no remedial measures had been taken by the petitioner and no Minutes Book was produced on record. As such, the authority of Ch. Mohinder Yadav to institute the present eviction petition has not been established on record.
CONCLUSION RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 18 of 19
30. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances of the case and findings as above, the present eviction petition is hereby dismissed, for being not instituted by duly authorized representative of petitioner company.
31. Original documents be returned to the parties after obtaining certified copies thereof against due receipt.
32. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
AKASH AKASH JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2020.08.07
17:50:47
+0530
ANNOUNCED THROUGH (AKASH JAIN)
VIDEO CONFERENCING ON ACJ/CCJ/ARC
06.08.2020 (WEST)/THC/DELHI
This Judgment contains 19 pages and signed by me
and same is uploaded on the server after affixing digital signatures. The parties may access the same from the website.
Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2020.08.07
17:50:51
+0530
(AKASH JAIN)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC
(WEST)/THC/DELHI
RC/ARC No. 25857/16 Yaduvanshi Real Estate (P) Ltd v. Arun Ahuja Page No. 19 of 19