Delhi District Court
Inder Mohini Aggarwal vs Karori Engineering Works on 10 May, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-2, WEST,
ROOM NO.209,EXTENSION BLOCK,
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
CNR NO.DLWT01-0064572023
CS (COMM) NO. 592/2023
IN THE MATTER OF :
SMT. INDER MOHINI AGGARWAL
(ALIAS SMT. MOHINI AGGARWAL
W/O LATE SH.K.K.AGGARWAL
R/O 4 UB, JAWAHAR NAGAR, BUNGALOW ROAD,
DELHI-110007 ......... PLAINTIFF
VS.
1. M/S KARORI ENGINEERING WORKS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PARTNERS
SH. SHEKHAR AGGARWAL
AT 16, SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-15/
2. SH. ABHINAV GULATI
S/O SH.B.R.GULATI
R/O HOUSE NO.15,
ROAD NO/25, EAST PUNJABI BAGH
NEW DELHI-26.
3. SMT. KIRAN DEVI GIRIA
PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHIV GANGA INDUSTRIES
16, SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-15.
.......... DEFENDANTS
Date of institution : 09.08.2023
Date of conclusion of arguments : 10.05.2024
Date of announcement of judgment : 10.05.2024
ORDER
1. The application under disposal is filed by the plaintiff seeking Summary Judgment under the provision of Order XIII A of The Commercial Courts Act.
CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.1/10 2
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present application are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery for possession and other relief(s) against the defendants inter alia stating therein that plaintiff is the owner and landlady of property number no.16, Shivaji Marg, Njafgarh Road Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015 ad-measuring 1200 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as suit property), wherein defendant no.1 was the sitting tenant at the time of its purchase on 01.02.2000. Defendant no.1 was inducted as tenant by M/s Gopi Nath (P) Ltd from whom the plaintiff had purchased the said property and by virtue of the sale deed dated 1.2.2000, defendant no.1 became tenant under the plaintiff by operation of law. The period of said tenancy had already expired and thereafter, the plaintiff entered into a fresh Rent Agreement dated 07.08.2001 which was unregistered, with defendant no.1 for a period of 50 years commencing from 01.08.2001 till 31.07.2051 qua which Defendant no.1 lastly paid rent @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per month.
3. Since defendant no.1 had been granted right to sublet the suit property, defendant no.1 had let out a portion of suit property to defendant no.2 who lastly paid rent to defendant no.1 @ 550/- per month. Defendant no.1 had also let out another portion of suit property to defendant no.3 who lastly paid rent @ Rs.1,100/- per month. Defendant no.1, however, had let out a substantial portion of suit property to M/s Prime Auto CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.2/10 3 Cars Limited @ Rs. 9,05,000/- per month plus GST. The plaintiff terminated the contractual tenancy of defendant no.1 w.e.f. 31.10.2023 by virtue of notice dated 13.01.2023 but defendant no.1 failed to deliver the possession of suit property. This notice was also addressed to the other defendants including M/s Prime Auto Car Ltd. Consequently, the tenancy of all the defendants stood determined vide notice dated 13.01.2023 w.e.f. 31.01.2023. After service of notice of termination of tenancy upon M/s Prime Auto Car Limited, it vacated the tenanted premises on 16.02.2023 and handed over possession of its portion to defendant no.1.
4. Plaintiff also averred that since defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 failed to comply with the notice dated 13.01.2023, the occupation of suit property by the defendants is unauthorised and illegal and the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profit @ 15 Lacs per month w.e.f. 01.02.2023 alongwith interest.
5. In the written statement filed by defendant no.1, defendant no.1 did not deny the averments of plaintiff.
6. Whereas, in the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2, defendant no.2 claimed that plaintiff was not entitled to possession of tenanted premises as defendant no.2 was a protected tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act and the suit of plaintiff was barred under Section 75 of DRC Act.
CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.3/10 4 Defendant no.2 also denied the averments of plaintiff on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 as defendant no.2 is a tenant in the suit premises by virtue of a Licence Deed dated 1.8.1990 which has been filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint. It was also alleged that the suit of the plaintiff was a collusive suit as plaintiff was the wife of Sh. K.K.Aggarwal and mother of Sh. Shekhar Aggarwal, partners in defendant no.1 firm. Defendant no. 2 claimed that as defendant no. 2 was tenant of defendant no. 1, he was a lawful tenant and protected under DRC Act. It was also claimed that since defendant no.1 failed to evict him under DRC Act, defendant no.2 had filed a petition under Section 27 of DRC Act whereby defendant no.2 was tendering monthly rent in the account of defendant no.1. It was also averred that the alleged unregistered rent agreement between plaintiff and defendant no.1 dated 07.08.2001 was an ante dated document which was created in collusion by plaintiff and defendant no.1 to unlawfully evict defendant no.2. Further, that defendant no.2 had also replied to the notice of plaintiff to which no response was given by the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 also claimed that defendant no.1 had represented himself to be the owner of suit property, hence, defendant no.2 was not the sub tenant of plaintiff, but a tenant of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 also averred that since plaintiff had purchased the tenanted premises by virtue of purported sale deed dated 01.02.2020 and it was only CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.4/10 5 subsequent thereto that the Lease Agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant no.1 on 07.08.2001, therefore, defendant no.2 was a protected tenant of defendant no.1 since 1.8.1990 i.e. prior to the alleged purchase of the tenanted property by the plaintiff and that no sub tenancy was ever created.
7. In his written statement, defendant no.3 questioned the locus standi of plaintiff to file the present suit as according to the sale deed filed by the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by one Mohini Aggarwal, whereas the plaintiff was Inder Mohini Aggarwal. Defendant no.3 also claimed that defendant no.3 was a protected tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act'1958. It was alleged that suit property was leased out to Shri Kirori Mal Agarwal vide lease deed dated 11.11.1952 with a right to construct an industrial building on it with the consent of M/s Gopi Nath (P) Ltd (Erstwhile Owner). After the death of Sh. Kirori Mal Agarwal, his legal heirs i.e. his wife Smt. Radha Rani and his son Sh. Kushal Kishore Aggarwal entered into a fresh lease dated 1.5.1960 with the owner for a period of 35 years commencing from 1.10.1959. It was a registered lease deed and it was during the currency of this lease deed, that defendant no.3 was inducted as tenant. Hence, the tenancy is governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and the present suit was barred u/s 50 of DRC Act. Further, that defendant no.1 had filed an eviction CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.5/10 6 petition under Section 14 (1) (a) DRC Act (E.No.51/2009) on 5.10.2009 and same was disposed off on 19.9.2013. It was also claimed that plaintiff and partners of defendant no.1 are acting in collusion and in connivance with each other as they are family members. Defendant no.3 also alleged that the lease agreement dated 07.08.2001 executed between plaintiff and defendant no.1 was an ante-dated manufactured document so as to unlawfully evict defendant no.3.
8. Lengthy arguments were address by learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsels for plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 and 3 also filed numerous judgments in support of their averments.
9. Summary judgment as the name suggests is an outcome of the case decided summarily, based on the documentary evidence produced before the Court by the parties, without going for recording of evidence. The rule of Civil Procedure empowers the court to narrow issues and expedite proceedings by granting summary judgments where the common law permits. It is an effective tool for deciding cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a trial is unnecessary. However, to grant a summary judgment, the court must be satisfied that there is no issue for trial. Rule 3 of Order XIII A of the CPC lays down the following grounds for Summary Judgment against a party on a claim, when it considers that :
CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.6/10 7
(a) The plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on a claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim : and
(b) There is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.
10. In a case titled as "AMBAWATTA BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURE LTD. AND ORS. reported as 2019 SCC ONLINE DL 8657, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:
"What has to be seen is, whether the defence pleaded, has any chance of succeeding in law and if the answer is in the negative, a decree on admissions or order XXV of CPC or a summary judgment Under Order XIII A CPC as applicable to commercial dispute where Chapter X-A of the Delhi High Court (in original sites) Rules 2018 has to follow."
11. The case in hand has peculiar facts as, according to the averments made in the plaint, defendant no. 1 is not a protected tenant under DRCA as the last paid monthly rent is allegedly more than Rs. 3,500/- per month. Whereas, in complete contrast, defendant nos. 2 and 3 are protected under DRCA as their monthly rent does not exceed Rs. 3,500/- per month. Be that as it may, it is the case of plaintiff that none of the defendants are protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act as ;
(1) Defendant no.1 had lastly paid rent @1,50,000/- per month and was lastly receiving rent @ Rs. 550/- per month CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.7/10 8 from defendant no.2 ; @ Rs. 1,100/- per month from defendant no.3 and @ Rs.9,05,000/- per month from M/s Prime Auto Car Limited, which is cumulatively above Rs.3,500/- per month and that;
(2) According to the Sale Deed dated 01.02.2000, defendant no.1 was let out a plot of land which does not fall within the definition of "premises" as defined in Delhi Rent Control Act.
12. To seek possession of suit property, the plaintiff first and foremost is required to establish that she is the owner of the suit property and that she stepped into the shoes of the predecessor M/s Gopi Nath Pvt. Ltd. The photocopy of sale deed dated 01.02.2000 which is heavily relied upon by the plaintiff shows that it was one Mohini Aggarwal who had purchased the property from M/s Gopi Nath Pvt. Ltd. Admittedly, the present suit is filed by one Inder Mohini Aggarwal and not Mohini Aggarwal. Moreover, the sale deed produced by the plaintiff is only a photocopy, neither certified copy nor original sale deed is placed on record. Assuming for the sake of argument that the sale deed is genuine, no chain of documents has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show as to how she acquired the title of suit property. The same assumes extreme importance as it is the case of defendant no.2 that defendant no.2 is a tenant of defendant no.1 who claimed himself to be the owner of suit property. It is also significant that the photocopy of sale deed dated 01.02.2000 CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.8/10 9 records that various registered lease deeds from time to time were executed between the erstwhile owner(s) of the suit property on the one hand and Sh. Karori Mal Aggarwal and his successors on the other hand. However, no such registered lease deeds were produced by the plaintiff so as to determine the nature of tenancy. Rather, one of the recitals in the photocopy of the sale deed dated 01.02.2000 records that by virtue of fresh lease deed executed between M/s Gopi Nath (P) Ltd. and Smt. Radha Rani and Sh. K.K. Aggarwal on 01.05.1960, industrial property and not industrial plot was given on lease for a period of 35 years commencing from 01.10.1959, which clearly falls within the definition of premises. Even the purported lease agreement dated 07.08.2001 between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 recites that "the lessor hereby grants to the lessee, their permission to use the leased premises for a period of 50 years w.e.f. 01.08.2001 to 31.07.2051.
13. It will also not be out of place to mention that admittedly the plaintiff is the wife of Sh. K.K. Aggarwal and mother of Shekhar Aggarwal who are partners in defendant no.1 firm. Hence, the fact that photocopy of documents with respect to rate of monthly rent received from defendant no. 1 could be manipulated, cannot be ruled out. In so far as monthly rent of M/s Prime Auto Car Ltd. is concerned, all the documents and photocopies which are denied by the contesting defendant CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.9/10 10 (defendant nos. 2 and 3). Hence, these documents are also required to be proved in accordance with law amongst other documents denied by the contesting defendants.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is crystal clear that neither the averments of contesting defendants nor the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff warrants Summary Judgment. Resultantly, the application is dismissed.
Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
ON 10.05.2024 HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2024.05.10
14:31:58
+0530
(HEMANI MALHOTRA)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02/WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS EXTN. BLOCK, DELHI @ CS (COMM)/592/2023 PAGE NO.10/10