2003 (4) TMI 565 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Relationship between the parties: Licensor-licensee or lessor-lessee.
2. Validity and enforceability of the agreement dated 15.5.1975.
3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
4. Entitlement to commission and damages.
5. Application of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
6. Legality of sub-tenancy under Section 16 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
7. Enhancement of damages by the High Court.

Summary:

1. Relationship between the parties:
The primary issue was whether the relationship between the respondent and the appellant was that of licensor and licensee or lessor and lessee. The Trial Court held that the transaction evidenced by the agreement dated 15.5.1975 amounted to a license and not sub-letting. The High Court affirmed this conclusion, noting that the appellant-defendant was only a licensee and not a lessee, and therefore, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. Validity and enforceability of the agreement dated 15.5.1975:
The High Court found that the agreement dated 15.5.1975 was entered into with mutual consent and was not a sham document. It was acted upon, and the appellant-defendant was an accounting party in terms of the agreement. Accounts were rendered up to March 1978, and payments were made up to June 1976. The appellant-defendant did not criminally trespass in the disputed shop but was in unlawful possession as the license ended on the expiry of the agreement period.

3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The High Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the appellant-defendant was only a licensee and not a lessee.

4. Entitlement to commission and damages:
The High Court affirmed the commission charges for the period from 14.10.1977 to 31.3.1978 fixed at Rs. 7,000/-. For the period from 1.4.1978 to 14.5.1980, a decree for Rs. 25,500/- was passed in favor of the plaintiffs. The High Court also awarded damages for unauthorized occupation at the rate of Rs. 1200/- p.m. from 15.5.1980 to 14.10.1980 and from the date of the suit till delivery of possession.

5. Application of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The High Court correctly applied Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, noting that these sections prevent oral evidence from varying the terms of a written contract. The appellant's claim that the agreement was a sham document was rejected based on documentary evidence showing that the agreement was acted upon.

6. Legality of sub-tenancy under Section 16 of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The High Court rejected the plea of sub-tenancy, noting that there was no consent from the original landlord as required u/s 16(2) of the Rent Control Act. The appellant could not claim sub-tenancy as it would enforce an illegal agreement.

7. Enhancement of damages by the High Court:
The High Court, with the consent of the parties, exercised powers under Order 41, Rules 30, 32, and 33, and increased the damages from Rs. 500/- p.m. to Rs. 1200/- p.m. The Court noted that rentals in the area had increased significantly after 1980, making the enhancement reasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The appellant's pleas were found to be without merit, and costs of Rs. 25,000/- were imposed on the appellant.

← Previous Next →