Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The defendant has contested the suit on the ground that the lease was initially for a period of three years i.e. though it was shown only for eleven months in the agreement, but it was orally extended for another three years and hence the plaintiff could not file the suit for possession before that date. Further that the defendant had spent a sum of Rs.1,19,000/- for the basic structural changes, modification and renovation of the building for the benefit of the plaintiff and for his jewellery business. The said renovation and changes had been done with the active supervision and co-operation of the plaintiff and on the understanding that the expenses will be adjusted from the future rent as also on the understanding that the lease was extended for another three years with 10% enhancement after two years. Thus, a cheque for Rs.20,000/- was issued by the defendant, which was accepted by the plaintiff and encashed and from the act, it was clear that there was extension of lease.

It was further submitted by him that immediately after having leased out the premises i.e. from 20.3.2004 the plaintiff had started some Manju Badiala vs. Naushad major construction/renovation work and structural changes. The plaintiff had requested for change of location of staircase and filling of basement so as to enable her to lease out the first floor of the premises on a good rent.

The defendant had spent around Rs.1,19,000/- on the renovation work and on demand, the plaintiff had stated that the same could be deducted from the future monthly rent. The defendant lost around 10% of leased space due to construction of staircase by the plaintiff. The defendant admitted having receive the legal notice dated 25.2.2005 from the plaintiff.

The defendant has contested this application submitting on the same lines as the WS that the rent agreement was initially for a period of 11 months, but was orally extended for another three years. The actual possession was only 180 sq. ft. working space instead of 237.50 sq. ft as alleged and that 57.5 sq. ft of the space was lost due to structural changes made by the parties. The plaintiff has agreed to extend the lease for further period of three years; that Sh. Rajesh, who used to collect the rent on behalf of the plaintiff, had refused to accept the same while the plaintiff was away and as such there was no willful default on part of the defendant. It is his case that he had spent a sum of Rs.1,19,000/- on renovation of the said premises after taking the plaintiff into confidence.

Rather, the defendant has taken a stand that he had spent a sum of Rs.1,19,000/- on the basic structural changes in the suit premises. This is a question, which can only be decided on trial. Hence, it cannot be said that the defendant has admitted that he was liable to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff.

I, thus, hold that in view of my discussions above, I am of the opinion that the defendant has only admitted the case of the plaintiff with respect to the possession of the property held by him. The plaintiff is thus, entitled to the recovery of possession on the admissions of these facts by the defendant. Hence, a decree under Order 12 rule 6 CPC for recovery of possession of the suit premises and permanent injunction is, thus, passed. The defendant, his associates, family members, authorised representatives and agents etc. are restrained from transferring, alienating or creating any Manju Badiala vs. Naushad third party interest or parting with possession of the suit property.