Delhi District Court
Judge Code Dl0804 vs Delhi Cantonment Board on 29 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS.NUPUR GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGEI, NEW DELHI
Judge Code DL0804
C.S. No.57302/16
Unique Case ID No.
Arvind Sood S/o late Sh. V.C. Sood
R/o 2/50, Sardar Bazar, Delhi Cantt110010 ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Delhi Cantonment Board
Delhi Cantt10, Through its CEO
2. Union of India
Ministry of Defence,
Through its Director General, Raksha Sampad Bhavan,
Ulaan Baatar Marg, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi110010.
3. Union of India
Through its Principal Director,
Directorate of Defence Estate, Western Command, 5th Floor,
Sector 9A, Chandigarh ... Defendants
Date of Institution : 21.10.2014
Date of Reserving Judgment : 18.10.2018
Date of Judgment : 29.10.2018
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION FOR TRANSFER OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IN
THE NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF AND ENTERIN THE NAME OF PLAINTIFF IN THE
GENERAL LAND REGISTER AND TO RENEW THE LEASE BY EXECUTING THE
LEASE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF
JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present suit, the plaintiff has sought a decree of mandatory CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 1/17 injunction in his favour and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to mutate/ transfer the leasehold rights in the demised premise in the name of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also sought a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants whereby directing the defendants to renew the lease of the demised premise by executing a fresh lease deed in his favour by allotting subsidiary survey number.
PLAINTIFF'S VERSION AS PER PLAINT
2. Succinctly, the plaintiff has asserted that he is the owner of the 1/4th portion in the property bearing survey no. 49/52 (hereinafter referred to as "demise premise") as the said property is a lease hold property and the said demise premise is situated at Delhi Cantonment Area and falls under the purview of Class 'C' Land. It is submitted that the lease of the above said land bearing survey no. 49/52 measuring 5610 sq.ft was first given to one late Sh. Ghewar Lal S/o L. Amar Lal by the defendant no.1 and the said lease deed was registered on 28.03.1946 at Delhi and thereafter, on 19.11.1955 the said Sh. Ghewar Lal executed a sale deed in favour of Dr. V.C. Sood, R.C. Sood, Rattan Lal Sood and Dev Raj Sood, all sons of Dala Ram Sood in equal share and the defendant no.1 had mutated/ transferred the lease in the names of abovenamed persons vide general land register. It is further submitted that thereafter, the second term of the lease was sanctioned w.e.f. 21.02.1975 to 20.02.2005 but the renewal deed in schedule IV could not be executed due to demise of colessee.
3. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is the son of Dr.V.C. Sood and after the death of Dr. V.C. Sood on 20.12.1976 the legal heirs of said lessee relinquished their respective shares in the name of the plaintiff and a relinquishment deed dated 16.10.1981 was also executed to this effect. It is further submitted that dispute with respect to the CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 2/17 said demised premise between the parties was finally settled vide Order dated 28.04.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and due to this reason, the plaintiff could not approach the defendant no.1 for mutation of the property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had requested the defendant no.1 orally to renew the lease in his name for the demised premise in view of the Order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and on 20.02.2013 the defendant no.1 had sent a letter to the plaintiff alongwith other legal heirs of the lessee's for the mutation/ renewal of lease of survey no. 49/52 Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt 10 and vide reply dated 20.03.2013 plaintiff had given his approval towards the renewal and transfer of the lease hold right and had also handed over documents to the defendant no.1. It is further submitted that despite repeated requests to the defendant no.1, the plaintiff had sent a lettercumnotice dated 04.07.2014 to the defendants for the said purpose, which was replied by the defendants that the junior engineer has conducted a site visit and has found out unauthorized construction on the demised premise. It is further submitted that Junior Engineer has not visited the site as there has been no notice/ report to the said effect. It is further submitted that plaintiff has already informed the defendants about the relinquishment deed and the death of his father and has also requested for transfer/ mutation several times despite a letter dated 04.07.2014, which was replied by the defendant no.1 on 06.09.2014. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to mutate/ transfer the leasehold rights in the demised premise in the name of the plaintiff as well as directing the defendants to renew the lease of the demised premise by executing a fresh lease deed in his favour by allotting subsidiary survey number.
CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 3/17 DEFENDANTS VERSION AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. On notice, defendants have filed joint written statement contesting the present suit. It is stated in the written statement of the defendants that the present suit is filed without any cause of action and the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands as the second term of the lease, which sanctioned w.e.f. 21.02.1975 to 20.02.2005 of the suit property already stands expired on 20.02.2005 for the want of execution of renewal deed in schedule IV due to demise of two recorded colessees, that is, Dr. V.C. Sood and Devraj Sood as well as non submission of the requisite documents by their legal heirs. It is further stated in the written statement that the other colessees/ successors in interest of the suit property are also necessary and proper parties to be impleaded for the entire and effective adjudication of the issues in controversy.
REPLICATION
5. On 12.03.2015, plaintiff had filed a replication to the written statement of defendants reiterating the averments in the plaint. The contents of the written statement were denied and the contents of the plaint were reaffirmed and the claim was maintained.
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
6. Admission/ denial of documents was not conducted. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were then framed by ld. Predecessor Court vide Order dated 17.09.2015 :
1. Whether the leasehold rights of plaintiff in the suit property have CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 4/17 expired by efflux of time and the plaintiff is an unauthorized occupation of the suit property? OPD.
2. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, that is, colessees of suit property as well as for misjoinder of parties, that is, defendants no.2 and 3? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendants to mutate/ transfer the leasehold right in the suit property in his name? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendants to renew the lease of the demised premise by executing fresh lease deed in favour of the plaintiff by allotting subsidiary survey number? OPP.
5. Relief.
EVIDENCE
7. PW1/ plaintiff Arvind Sood stepped into the witness box and deposed vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents: S.No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Document
1. Ex.PW1/1 Lease deed dated 21.03.1946.
2. Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) Sale deed dated 19.11.1955 alongwith its English translated (OSR) copy.
3. Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) Relinquishment deed dated 16.10.1981.
4. Ex.PW1/4 Certified copy of joint statement of parties in Mediation Center of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 21.02.2011.
5. Ex.PW1/5 Certified copy of Order dated 28.04.2011 passed by Sh.
G.S. Sistani, Hon'ble Mr. Justice in the partition case no. RFA 271/2008.
6. Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) Letter dated 06.10.1998 sent to the defendant.
7. Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) Site plan of the demise premise as partition by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 5/17
8. Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) Letter dated 28.02.2013 sent by the defendant.
9. Ex.PW1/9 (OSR) Reply to the letter dated 28.02.2013 sent by the plaintiff on 28.03.2013.
10. Ex.PW1/10 Letters/ notices dated 04.07.2014 u/s 339 Cantonment Act, (Colly) 2006 and u/s 80 CPC alongwith the postal receipts.
11. Ex.PW1/11 Reply dated 06.9.2014 to the letters/ notices dated 04.7.2014 by the defendant no.1.
8. PW2 Ms. Pragya Tiwari, Draftsman Grade II stepped into the witness box and relied upon the following documents: S.No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Document
1. Ex.PW2/1 Certified copy of the extract of general land register pertaining to survey no. 49/52, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt, Delhi.
2. Ex.PW2/2 Certified copy of lease deed dated 28.03.1946 pertaining to survey no. 49/52, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt.
3. Ex.PW2/3 Certified copy of proceedings of Civil Area Committee Meeting of the Delhi Cantonment Board held on 12.08.2015 at 16:00 hours.
4. Ex.PW2/4 Certified copy of D.D letter no. 18/131/L/L & C/44 dated 21.08.1944 (page 59 of the MLM 1945).
5. Ex.PW2/5 Certified copy of letter of GOI, Ministry of Defence (ML&C Directorate) letter no. 2/29/L/L&C/53/113/81L dated 03.10.1955.
6. Ex.PW2/6 Certified copy of letter of GOI, Ministry of Defence (DECC) letter no. 49749/LC2 dated 10.10.1981.
7. Ex.PW2/7 (OSR) Authority letter in favour of PW2 by Ministry of Defence and the Principal Director.
9. Both the witnesses were cross examined at length by ld.counsel for the CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 6/17 defendants. Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed on 09.02.2017. This is entire evidence of the plaintiff adduced in the present case.
10. DW1 Ms. Pragya Tiwari, Draftsman (civil) Grade II stepped into the witness box and deposed vide her affidavit Ex.DW1/A. She has relied upon following documents : S.No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Document
1. Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) Authorization letter dated 25.11.2014 in favour of defendant no.1, which has already been Ex.PW2/7 (colly)
2. Ex.DW1/2 (OSR) Authorization letter dated 01.12.2014 in favour of defendant no.1.
3. Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) Copy of extract of general land register, which has already been Ex.PW2/1.
4. Ex.DW1/4 (OSR) Copy of letter dated 12.07.1979.
5. Ex.DW1/5 (Colly) Copies of letters dated 04.2.1980, 08.7.1980, 03.8.1980, (OSR) 25.10.1980, 31.3.1981 and 23.6.1981 written by defendant no.1 to colessees.
6. Ex.DW1/6 (OSR) Copy of legal opinion dated 21.10.1982.
7. Ex.DW1/7 (OSR) Copy of communication to the plaintiff dated 11.02.1982.
8. Ex.DW1/8 (OSR) Copy of legal opinion dated 19.07.1984.
9. Ex.DW1/9 (OSR) Copy of communication to the plaintiff dated 26.02.1985.
10. Ex.DW1/10 (Colly) Copies of letters dated 10.7.2002, 14.12.1995, 06.5.1992, (OSR) 4.11.1992, 21.5.1993, 31.1.1994, 15.6.1994 and 1.3.1995 written by defendant no.1 to LRs of recorded lessees.
11. Ex.DW1/11 (OSR) Copy of letter dated 06.10.1998, which is written as 26.10.1998 due to typographical error, is already Ex.PW1/6.
12. EX.DW1/12 (OSR) Report of JE (Civil) Ajay Kumar dated 01.08.2014.
13. Ex.DW1/13 (Colly) Copies of reply dated 06.9.2014 sent by the defendants CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 7/17 to legal notice of plaintiff dated 04.7.2014 already Ex.PW1/11.
11. DW2 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Junior Engineer (Civil) stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 01.08.2014 he had visited the suit property and had noticed unauthorized construction and encroachment at the suit site and gave his report dated 01.08.2014 to the department Ex.DW1/2.
12. Both the witnesses were cross examined at length by counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed on 17.03.2018. This is entire evidence of both the parties adduced in the present case.
ARGUMENTS
13. Ld.counsel for the plaintiff has argued that a lease deed was executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of Sh. Ghewar Lal who on 19.11.1955 executed a sale deed Ex.PW1/2 in favour of Dr. V.C. Sood, R.C Sood, Ratan Lal Sood and Sh. Devraj Sood. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the second term of lease was also sanctioned by the defendant no.1 w.e.f. 21.02.1975 to 20.02.2005 but renewed lease deed could not be executed due to demise of colessee. It is further argued by the plaintiff that since the suit property has been partitioned between the legal heirs of the lessees by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Order dated 28.04.2011, plaintiff had written a letter to the defendant no.1 for renewal of lease deed, however, defendant no.1 failed to do so and therefore, the present suit has been filed.
14. Per contra, ld. counsel for the defendants submits that the first term of the lease of survey no. 49/52 was expired on 20.02.1975 and since then, despite various letters written by the defendant no.1 to colessees for execution of renewal deed, plaintiff CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 8/17 had never submitted the required documents. It is further contended by the defendants that subdivision of the suit property is not permissible as per the terms and conditions of the lease without the consent of the competent authority and therefore, admittedly, plaintiff has violated the terms and conditions of the lease. It is further argued by the defendants that as on date, plaintiff is in unauthorized occupation of the suit property and has no right, title or interest in the suit property.
15. I have heard the submissions of the counsel for the defendants and the counsel for the plaintiff. I have also gone through the entire case record meticulously with the kind assistance of both the parties. After weighing the rival contentions and after appreciating the evidence adduced, my issuewise findings are as below : ISSUE NO.1 Whether the leasehold rights of plaintiff in the suit property have expired by efflux of time and the plaintiff is an unauthorized occupation of the suit property? OPD.
16. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. In respect of this issue, both the parties have relied upon Ex.PW1/1, the lease deed dated 21.03.1946. Counsel for the defendants has submitted that under the terms of the lease the lease was for a period of 30 years initially and thereafter it was renewable at the option of the lessee upto a period of 90 years. It is further submitted by the defendants that first tenure of lease got expired in the year 1975 and thereafter lease was sanctioned for further 30 years, that is, upto year 2005, however, since plaintiff did not submitted the required documents, fresh lease could not be executed. It is also contended by the defendants that even after expiry of second term of lease in the year 2005, plaintiff did not come forward and the present suit was instituted in the year 2014, thus, submitted that the CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 9/17 tenancy has come to an end by efflux of time and plaintiff is an unauthorized occupant in the suit property.
17. I have examined the document. Ext. PW1/1, relied upon by both the parties. The lease deed, Ext. PWl/1 was granted w.e.f. 21.03.1946 for an initial period of thirty years. In other words, the initial term of thirty years of lease came to an end in the year 1975. For first renewal of the lease for a further period of thirty years w.e.f. 21.03.1975 an option and an unilateral right was conferred on the plaintiff by the terms of the lease deed Ext. PW 1/1. Such an option/right was exercised by the plaintiff and sanction was also granted by defendants for renewal of lease deed, however, a fresh lease could not be executed as plaintiff has admittedly not submitted the required documents. At this stage it is relevant to reproduce clause III of lease deed Ex PW1/1 which reads as under: III. Provided also that the Lessor will at the request and cost of the lessee at the end of the term of years hereby granted and so on from time to time thereafter at the end of each such successive further term of years hereby demised by way of renewal for the term of thirty years but such renewed term of years as shall be granted shall not with the original term of years exceed in the aggregate the period of ninety years and such renewed leases shall be granted only at such rents within a percentage of enhancement of fifty per cent of the rent which shall have been reserved by any lease (either original or renewed immediately preceding the renewed lease) to be for the time being granted as the Lessor shall determine and save as to the CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 10/17 amount of the rent to be thereby reserved and as to the term demised shall contain such of the covenants and conditions in these present contained as shall be applicable.
18. Perusal of the abovementioned clause clearly shows that though option to renew the lease lies with the lessee, however, he is required to get a fresh lease deed executed for a further term. In the present case, it is not disputed by the plaintiff that though defendants had made several communications to submit the required documents, however, plaintiff has failed to do so. Rather in the plaint itself, plaintiff has admitted that fresh lease deed could not be executed due to demise of co lessee. Para 4 of the plaint is relevant for reference which is as follows: (4) That it is submitted that thereafter the second term of the lease was sanctioned w.e.f 21.02.1975 to 20.02.2005, but renewal deed in schedule IV could not be executed due to demise of colessee. That neither the defendant no.1 show much interest in executing the said renewal deed nor th lessee's could go ahead with same owing to the family disputes regarding the said demised premises.
19. Also, defendants have placed on record various letters Ex DW1/5 (Colly) and DW1/10 (Colly) which were written to the plaintiff for submission of necessary documents for execution of fresh lease deed. All the letters placed on record by the defendant are duly proved and have not been disputed by the plaintiff either. The perusal of lease deed as well as documents placed on record clearly shows that lease deed got expired in the year 1975 and even after sanction for second term of 30 years, fresh lease CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 11/17 deed could not be executed. Even if it is assumed that lease deed was renewed for further 30 years in the year 1975, then also lease term got expired in the year 2005. Further it is revealed from the documents that after expiry of lease in the year 1975, plaintiff had written first letter to the defendants on 20.02.2013, that is, nearly about after 37 years.
20. It is also not a case where lease deed, Ex.PW1/1, is for indefinite term rather it is specifically mentioned in the lease deed that it is for a period of thirty years and can be further renewed at the option of the lessee on execution of fresh lease deed. It is well settled law that there can be no tenancy for an indefinite period when the clause of the lease puts restrictions for extension for indefinite period. In a similar case reported as Ved Prakash Khullar & Orthers v. MIS Genelec Ltd. 1993(1) Delhi Lawyer 258, it was held, that the tenancy of the defendants cannot be for an indefinite period in terms of the lease deed when it specifically restricts for one period. Since as per the terms of lease deed Ex PW1/1, a fresh lease deed was required to be executed and the same has not been executed after the first term of lease which got expired in the year 1975, it can clearly be held that lease deed has expired by efflux of time and plaintiff cannot be said to be a lawful occupant in the suit property as plaintiff has not exercised his right of renewal of lease property.
21. In the light of above discussion, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, that is, colessees of suit property as well as for misjoinder of parties, that is, defendants no.2 and 3?
CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 12/17 OPD.
22. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. In the present case, defendants have taken an objection that suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as plaintiff has not impleaded co lessees of the suit property. Per contra, it is contended by the counsel for the plaintiff that since the suit property has been partitioned between the co lessees by the Order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, there was no requirement of impleadment of other colesses in the present suit.
23. Perusal of the record shows that plaintiff has placed on record copy of order dated 28.04.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Partition case no. RFA 271/2008 wherein all the co lessees amicable resolved the dispute between them and divided the suit property as recorded in the mediation proceedings. However, neither the pleadings of the said suit nor the copy of the decree drawn by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been placed on record for perusal of the court. Be that as it may, since admittedly the plaintiff alongwith other co lessees are the lessee in the suit property and defendants are the owner of the same, it seems that the partition affected in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is not conferring any ownership rights and rather the rights were conferred with regard to possession of portions of the suit property. The said mutual settlement is for the convenience of possession of the parties interse only and the same is not binding upon defendants. However, admittedly as on date there is only one lease deed executed for a single unit by the defendants and therefore, other co lessees were also necessary party to the present suit who have not been impleaded by the plaintiff. Therefore, present suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties.
24. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 13/17 ISSUES NO.3 & 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendants to mutate/ transfer the leasehold right in the suit property in his name? OPP.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendants to renew the lease of the demised premise by executing fresh lease deed in favour of the plaintiff by allotting subsidiary survey number? OPP.
25. The onus to prove these issue lies upon the plaintiff. Since both these issues are intermeshed with each other, they can be decided by common appraisal of evidence.
26. By way of present suit, plaintiff is seeking mandatory injunction against the defendants to mutate the leasehold rights in the suit property in his name and to renew the lease of suit premises by executing fresh lease deed in favour of plaintiff.
27. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that in view of my findings on issue no.1, lease of the suit premises has already expired by efflux of time and plaintiff is no more an authorized occupant in the suit property due to his own conduct.
28. It is a well settled law that a relief of injunction is a discretionary relief. A party before it can ask a Court to exercise such discretion in its favour must show that it has shown equities in its favour which would impel a Court to exercise discretion in its favour. In the alternative the party seeking injunction must possess some right which the opposite party is trying to invade or there must exist an obligation in its favour whether contractual or otherwise in respect of which the opposite party is trying to commit breach. These principles clearly emerge out of Section 38 and Section 39 of the CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 14/17 Specific Relief Act which deals under what circumstances the Court may grantthe discretionary relief of injunction. But in the instant case, none of these circumstances are in existence for granting the relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff has admittedly neither approached the defendants since 1975 to get the lease of the suit property renewed nor has ever made any communication stating the circumstances in which necessary documents could not be submitted. The plaintiff claiming the relief of mandatory injunction has to establish the breach of obligation or infringement of his legal right. In the instant case, the plaintiff failed to prove the breach of contract by the defendants but on the other hand it has come on record that the plaintiff himself committed breach of contract by his conduct of non submission of the documents since long. The conduct of the party in seeking the equitable relief must be fair and equitable and should not be dishonest.
29. In Seemax Constructions Private Limited v. State Bank of India and another, AIR 1992 Del. 197, it is held that "the suppression of material fact by itself is a sufficient ground to decline the discretionary relief of injunction. A party seeking discretionary relief has to approach the Court with clean hands and is required to disclose all material facts which may, one way or the other, affect the decision. A person deliberately concealing material facts' from Court is not entitled to any discretionary relief and the Court can refuse to hear such person on merits. A person seeking relief of injunction is required to make honest disclosure of all relevant statements of facts otherwise it would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court".
30. In the present case also, plaintiff has cleverly concealed from the court that despite several letters issued by defendants, neither plaintiff has replied to the same nor has furnished the required documents since the year 1975. It is well settled law that CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 15/17 the power which the court possesses of granting injunctions whether perpetual or mandatory should be very cautiously exercise and only upon clear and satisfactory grounds, otherwise it may work the greatest injury. Injunctions are a form of equitable relief and have to be adjusted in aid of equity and justice to the facts of each particular case.
31. An injunction is not and cannot be granted as a matter of course. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in judgment reported in AIR 2003 SCW 1561 titled as Canara Bank v. Debasis Das and Ors held as : "A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner."
32. The Court denies the relief to a suitor who is himself guilty of misconduct in respect of the matter in controversy. It is well known maxim of equity that "He who comes to seek equity must come with clean hands".
33. It has to be remembered that a suit for injunction is an equitable remedy and the primary requirement for grant of an equitable remedy is that the person who claims the remedy must come before the Court with clean hands. He must show equity and must show his entitlement under the equity the relief he has sought. Fairness and good faith are two important things required for obtaining any equitable relief. If plaintiff in his conduct against defendants, has acted in an unfair or in equitable manner, he would not be entitled to injunction.
34. In the present case, neither plaintiff has disclosed that several CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 16/17 communications were made by the defendants to the plaintiff for renewal of lease nor plaintiff has disclosed that required documents were not submitted by the plaintiff due to which fresh lease deed could not be executed rather plaintiff has stated in para 4 of the plaint that lease deed could not be renewed due to demise of colessee. It is further stated that neither defendant no.1 show much interest in executing the said renewal deed nor the lessee could go ahead owing to family disputes. However, the said averment is totally contradictory to the record of the case which proves that defendants had sent various letters to the plaintiff for renewal of lease, however, plaintiff did not bothered to reply to the said letters. Also plaintiff has not even placed on record the letters received by him by the defendants and infact did not mention the said fact in the entire pleadings, which shows that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and is therefore not entitled to equitable relief of injunction.
35. Accordingly, both these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
RELIEF
36. Consequent to the above discussion, it is hereby ordered that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to Record Room after indexing, pagination and completion.
Announced in the open Court (Nupur Gupta)
on 29.10.2018 Civil JudgeI, New Delhi District
New Delhi
The judgment contains pages 1 to 17
all checked and signed by me.
CS No.57302/16 Arvind Sood Vs Delhi Cantonment Board 17/17