Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2024.07.16 17:57:35 +0530 industrial/ institutional premises and a copy of the project report being Mark DW1/G, copy of the application for consent to establish (NOC) dated 27.09.2019 by the accused to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board being Mark DW1/H, copy of the photographs of the ongoing service work and repair work at the premises in question being Mark DW1/I-1 to I-7, copy of the e-mails exchanged between the complainant and the accused being Ex.DW1/J, copy of the letter/ mail from the accused to Noida Development authority dated 19.02.2021, 22.02.21 and 03.3.21 being Mark DW1/K, copy of the policy and procedure for industrial, property management of the Noida authority- October 2012 being Mark DW1/L, copy of the affidavit filed by the Noida Authority before the Allahabad High Court in WP (C) No. 20408/2021 being Mark DW1/M, copy of the whatsapp conversation between Mr. Nitin Ahuja and the accused being Ex.DW1/N, copy of the legal notice dated 24.06.2020 being Mark DW1/O, copy of the e-mails dated 01.05.2020 to 21.05.2020 being Ex.DW1/P, copy of the notice dated 31.08.2020 sent by Noida Authority to the complainant being Mark DW1/Q, copy of the letters dated 04.03.2021 & 08.03.21 sent by the accused to the complainant being Mark DW1/R, e-mail dated 04.3.2021 sent by me to Sh. D.R Mehta being Ex.DW1/S, copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in OMP (1) (Comm.) NO.1 of 2021 dated 27.01.2021 being Mark DW1/T, Certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act in support of whatsapp and e-mails is Ex.DW1/U. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel Digitally signed by POONAM POONAM SINGH SINGH Date:

CW1 who is the AR of the complainant company deposed in his cross-examination that the complainant company had obtained the demised premises through a lease from the NOIDA Authority, UP. Further CW2 who is father of CW1 was also examined and cross-examined. CW2 during his cross-examination brought on record the copy of lease deed dated 02.06.2005 executed between the NOIDA authority and complainant company which is Mark A. As per this aforementioned lease deed dated 02.06.2005, complainant company is a lessee of the demised premises. Clause III (1) of the aforesaid lease deed clearly mentions that the demised premises was let out to the complainant company only for the purposes of "manufacture of readymade garment w/o dying and bleaching". And the complainant company could not use or permit to be used the let-out property for any other purpose without the consent in writing of the NOIDA Authority. Further Clause III (12) of the aforementioned lease deed stated that the lessee/complainant company shall not transfer, relinquish or assign his interest in the demised premises without the previous consent in writing of the Lessor i.e. the NOIDA authority. The fact that the complainant company did not obtain any such previous consent in POONAM SINGH Date:

SINGH 2024.07.16 17:58:29 +0530 writing of the NOIDA authority either for the change of use or for subletting the property to the accused no. 1 company is not disputed.
28.Further the accused no. 2 examined himself as DW 1 and deposed that a dealership was awarded to the accused by the Tata Motors and thereafter MOU was entered between the accused and the complainant. He further deposed that as per the MOU the accused no 1 company spent around 70-80 lacs for building the desired structure at the said vacant plot of the complainant and the complainant was to get the permission from the NOIDA authority to rent out the premises to the Accused no.1 company. DW1 further deposed that the complainant company failed to obtain the rental permission from the NOIDA authority and in absence of such rental permission, Tata Motors did not permit the accused to carry out the business as per the dealer ship agreement. Accused no. 2/DW1 filed the original dealership agreement dated 03.10.2019 entered into between the accused no.1 company and Tata Motors and the copy of MOU entered between the accused and the complainant company dated 03.10.2019. DW1 has also filed WhatsApp and e-mail conversations between DW1 and CW 2 which are EX DW1/F and DW1/J respectively to show that repeated requests to the complainant for obtaining rental permission were made on behalf of the accused. Further DW1 has also put on record the copy of policy and procedure for industrial, property management of the NOIDA authority, October 2012 which is Mark DW1/L to show that no direct correspondence from the POONAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.07.16 17:58:37 +0530 tenant for obtaining rental permission could have been entertained by the NOIDA authority and it was the responsibility of the complainant only to obtain the rental permission from the NOIDA Authority.
29.Further it argued on behalf of the accused that since the complainant failed to obtain a rental permission from the NOIDA Authority, the accused was facing difficulty in carrying out its business of TATA Motors Dealership and therefore requested the complainant to not to present the cheques in question in the bank until the rental permission is obtained. DW1 has also put on record the copy of legal notice dated 24.06.2020 sent on behalf of the accused no.1 company to the complainant stating that since the rental permission has not been obtained by the complainant, the complainant shall stop using the postdated cheques given by the accused at the time of executing the lease deed for payment of rent until the rental permission is obtained by the complainant.