9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1211 - HC - Indian LawsDirection to appellant/defendant to deposit arrears of rent @ ₹ 1 lakh per month from the date of the institution and till the pendency of the suit - Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC - only argument of the counsel for the appellant/defendant is that under Order XV-A CPC, no direction for deposit of any amount in excess of that admitted by the defendant as payable can be issued - HELD THAT - Order XV-A was introduced in the CPC as applicable to Delhi vide notification published in the Delhi Gazette dated 14th November, 2008. The same provides that in a suit by an owner/lessor for eviction of an unauthorized occupant/lessee or for the recovery of rent and future mesne profits from him, the defendant shall deposit such amount as the Court may direct on account of arrears upto the date of the order and thereafter continue to deposit in each succeeding month the rent claimed in the suit as the Court may direct. It further provides that upon default by the defendant in making the deposit, the defence of such a defendant may be struck off. Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC permits a Court to grant a relief, which had not become due to the plaintiff on the date of institution of the suit and the cause of action wherefor had not accrued on the date of institution of the suit and which fell due to the plaintiff after the date of institution of the suit. The said provision was made, perhaps to obviate the need for filing of a suit for recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation of the property during the pendency of a suit for recovery of possession from the person in unauthorized occupation thereof. Though Order XVA is titled as Striking Off defence in a suit by a lessor but the same is not confined to striking off of defence only. The same, independently of Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC, vests in the Court the power for issuing a direction for deposit. While so empowering the Court, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, a departure was made from the language of Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC. While under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC, a direction could be issued only for deposit/payment of admitted amount, the word 'admitted' is conspicuous by its absence in Order XV-A of the CPC. A discretion has been vested in the Court to issue direction for deposit of such amount as the Court may direct. Such departure from language of an earlier existing provision is a tool of interpretation - Reference may also be made to KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 2011 (9) TMI 1098 - SUPREME COURT , where, finding the legislature to have designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, in enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, by introduction of the word first between the words sue and accrued , it was held that if the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the cause of action first accrued. In the present case, the learned Single Judge had two versions before him. One, of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff of the last rent paid by the appellant/defendant at the rate of ₹ 3 lakhs per month and the other of the appellant/defendant, of the last rent being paid at the rate of ₹ 1,000/- per month. The learned Single Judge has chosen to issue the direction for deposit @ ₹ 1 lakh per month - We are prima facie unable to believe that a valuable commercial property, as the subject property is, would have been let out at a rent below ₹ 3,500/- per month, allowing the letting to fall within the ambit of the Rent Act, whereunder the eviction of a tenant is not only difficult but virtually impossible. Both the parties obviously have been indulging in transactions in cash, perhaps to avoid taxes. We in the circumstances are of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Commission Agency Agreements. 2. Ownership of the property. 3. Determination of the rent amount. 4. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 5. The direction for deposit under Order XV-A of the CPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Commission Agency Agreements: The appellant/defendant contested the validity of the Commission Agency Agreements dated 31st August, 2002, and 31st August, 2006, claiming they were fraudulently executed by making the appellant/defendant sign blank papers. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff, however, maintained that these agreements were genuine and that the appellant/defendant had guaranteed payment under these agreements. 2. Ownership of the Property: The appellant/defendant denied the ownership of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff over the property in question. This issue was raised as a defense in the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant. 3. Determination of the Rent Amount: The core issue was the determination of the rent amount. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff claimed the rent was Rs. 3 lakhs per month, while the appellant/defendant contended it was Rs. 1,000 per month. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant/defendant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh per month during the pendency of the suit, considering the arguments and the material presented. 4. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: The appellant/defendant argued that the suit for recovery of possession was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as the rent was Rs. 1,000 per month. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff, however, claimed the rent was Rs. 3 lakhs per month, making the provisions of the Rent Act inapplicable. 5. The Direction for Deposit under Order XV-A of the CPC: The learned Single Judge directed the appellant/defendant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh per month under Order XV-A of the CPC. The appellant/defendant argued that no direction for deposit in excess of the admitted rent amount (Rs. 1,000 per month) could be issued. The Court, however, held that Order XV-A of the CPC allows the Court to direct deposit of an amount commensurate with the market rent or higher than the admitted rent, to mitigate the hardship to the landlord during the pendency of the eviction suit. Comprehensive Analysis: Validity of the Commission Agency Agreements: The appellant/defendant denied the authenticity of the Commission Agency Agreements, alleging they were signed under fraudulent circumstances. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff, however, relied on these agreements to substantiate the claim of the rent amount and the terms of tenancy. The Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the learned Single Judge's direction based on these agreements. Ownership of the Property: The appellant/defendant's challenge to the ownership of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was noted, but the Court did not delve deeply into this issue as it was not central to the determination of the interim deposit order under Order XV-A of the CPC. Determination of the Rent Amount: The dispute over the rent amount was a significant issue. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments and the lack of conclusive documentary evidence from both parties, directed a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh per month. The Court noted that the property in question was a valuable commercial property, and it was unlikely to have been let out at a rent below Rs. 3,500 per month, which would fall under the Rent Act. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: The appellant/defendant's argument that the suit was barred by the Rent Act was based on the claim that the rent was Rs. 1,000 per month. The Court, however, found that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff's claim of Rs. 3 lakhs per month rent was more plausible for a commercial property of such value. Thus, the provisions of the Rent Act were deemed inapplicable. The Direction for Deposit under Order XV-A of the CPC: The Court explained that Order XV-A of the CPC, applicable in Delhi, allows for the deposit of an amount higher than the admitted rent, to ensure that the landlord is not deprived of rent or mesne profits during the pendency of the suit. The Court upheld the learned Single Judge's direction for the appellant/defendant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh per month, emphasizing that this provision aims to prevent abuse of the judicial process and to protect the rights of the landlord. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant/defendant was granted additional time to comply with the deposit order. The Court also directed that the deposited amount should not be released to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff until the final adjudication of the suit. The judgment underscores the Court's discretion under Order XV-A of the CPC to direct deposits that reflect the probable market rent, even if disputed by the tenant, to ensure fairness during the litigation process.
|
