Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: specific performance and declaration in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd vs TeeEm Builders Pvt. Ltd on 1 December, 2013Matching Fragments
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. TATA Consultancy Serives Ltd. TEEEM Builders Pvt. Ltd.
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 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.
13. So far, the legal position existing today is as enunciated in the decision 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.