RAJESH KUMAR SEHRAWAT vs LAXMI
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 233/2023 CM APPL. 54232/2023
% Date of Decision: 22.03.2024
RAJESH KUMAR SEHRAWAT ….. APPELLANT
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharma Darmora and Mr.
Nitin Darmora, Advocates
versus
LAXMI ….. RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. J.B Mudgil, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment/decree dated 09.08.2023 (hereafter the impugned judgment) passed by the learned Commercial Court in CS (COMM) No. 428/2022 captioned Laxmi v. Rajesh Kumar Sehrawat.
2. The learned Commercial Court, in terms of the impugned judgment allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order XII Rule 6, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter the CPC) and partially decreed the suit of possession in favor of the respondent in respect of the property bearing Shop No.G-6, Ground Floor, Plot No. 5, Sector-4, Malik Plaza, Dwarka, New Delhi (hereafter the demised premises).
3. There is no dispute as to the jural relationship between the appellant and the respondent. Admittedly, the appellant was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises. The demised premises was leased to the appellant by the late husband of the respondent in the year 2014 for a period of four years. The said lease expired in the year 2018. Thereafter, a fresh lease deed dated 06.08.2018 was executed between the appellant and the respondents late husband. The lease deed was registered. The term of the lease was for a further period of four years commencing from 11.07.2018. Thus, the lease was to expire on 11.07.2022. The parties had agreed that the monthly rent would be ?1,25,000/-. The appellant had also furnished a refundable security deposit for a sum of ?2,30,000/-.
4. It was the respondents case that the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent on several occasions. Accordingly, the respondent was not willing to extend the lease and sought the appellants eviction from the demised premises.
5. Notwithstanding, that the lease deed was expired, the appellant had refused to vacate the demised premises. Thereafter, the respondent sent the legal notice calling upon the appellant to vacate the demised premises. It is stated that instead of vacating the demised premises, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction.
6. The appellant filed the written statement admitting some of the material facts. Accordingly, the respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC seeking a decree of eviction. The said application was allowed and the appellant filed the present appeal.
7. The present appeal was listed on 17.10.2023 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the statement that the appellant would vacate the demised premises within the period of six months from that date and also pay the rent as agreed between the parties for the said period. Although, we were not inclined to pass any interim order, in view of the said statement, we stayed the operation of the impugned judgment.
8. The present appeal was thereafter listed on 17.11.2023. On that date, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant had not paid the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). He also fairly stated that if the appellant pays the TDS and up-to-date rent, the respondent would have no objection to the appellant continuing to occupy the demised premises for a period of six months from 17.10.2023. He also stated that if the arrears are paid in full, the respondent would not press the suit for any further relief.
9. The said suggestion was agreeable to the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal was listed on 12.03.2024 and further on 13.03.2024. On the said dates, this Court was informed that the appellant had furnished the amount of TDS for the financial year ending on 31.03.2023 and prior financial years. It was further stated that the appellant would deposit the TDS for the financial year 2023-24 with the Income Tax Authorities in accordance with the law.
10. It was also stated that the appellant had deposited the entire rent up-to-date. This was stoutly contested by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court had called upon the parties to submit the statement of account.
11. The respondent has filed the statement which indicates that rent for the months of October 2023 to March 2024 (aggregating a sum of ?6,75,000/-) have not been paid. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not disputed the statement of account provided by the respondent. However, he states that rents for the month of October, November and December 2023 were deposited with the Registry of this Court.
12. Concededly, the rent for the period of January 2024 to March 2024 has not been deposited. Thus, the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant on the last date of hearing that the entire dues have been paid up-to-date, was an incorrect statement.
13. It is also apparent that the appellant has not lived up to his statement made before this Court on 17.10.2023 and 17.11.2023. We are not inclined to grant the appellant any further indulgence.
14. We find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. As noted above, the jural relationship of a landlord and a tenant is established. The term of the lease deed has expired. Undisputedly, the appellant has no right to continue occupying the demised premises.
15. The appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at ?1.00 lakh. The amount deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Court is directed to be released to the respondent.
16. The respondent is at liberty to enforce the steps for enforcement of the impugned judgment and is also at liberty to pursue the proceedings for his monetary claims.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MARCH 22, 2024
g.joshi
RFA(COMM) 233/2023 Page 1 of 1