9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner in advance. Thereafter, the company did not make payment of any rent to the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed C. P. No. 76 of 1987 seeking winding up of the company on the same ground alleging that the company was indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 2,89,079.80 which it had not paid in spite of the service of notice of demand being arrears of rent from May 1, 1985, till March 31, 1987. The company in C. P. No. 76 of 1987 took about one year to make the said payment. After payment of the arrears of rent for the period ending March 30, 1988, C. P. No. 76 of 1987 was dismissed on August 2, 1988, and the company also assured the petitioner that she would be regularly paid the rent in future. The company again did not make any payment with the result that the widow again had to come to this court with the present petition. Before filing this petition, the petitioner served on the company a notice dated July 24, 1989, making a demand for Rs. 4,69,566.22 from the company. It was, inter alia , stated in the notice that the premises were let out at the rent of Rs. 17,004.40 per month; the rent was to be enhanced by 15 per cent, with effect from March 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office of the company at D-935, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. It has further pleaded that the sum of Rs. 68,017 was lying with the petitioner as security and the company was entitled to adjustment of the said amount as also of Rs. 2,55,071.50 paid to the corporation. The company has also disputed its liability to pay the other amounts like the water tax, scavenging tax and enhanced property tax. It has been pleaded that the company is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 17,004.40 per month as rent only up to February 28, 1990, and as the company has filed a petition for fixation of standard rent before the Rent Controller, the company is not liable to pay the agreed rent of Rs. 17,004.40 from March 1, 1990. According to the company, the standard rent of the premises is liable to be fixed at Rs. 5,970 per month and from March 1, 1990, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of anything beyond the amount of Rs. 5,970 per month. On February 4, 1991, counsel for the respondent-company stated that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the company, it is prepared to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt due from the company would still be over Rs. 4,50,000 which the company has failed to pay. It is a most unfortunate case. From the facts of the case one thing is absolutely clear and it is that except for making payment of rent in advance for two months in 1985 at the time of taking premises on rent, the company did not, at any time on its own, make payment of rent to the petitioner. The lady who is a widow was forced to come to court earlier (C. P. No. 76 of 1987) and again by filing this petition. It would also be useful to notice that it is not the case of the company that except for payments made by it to the petitioner during the course of C. P. No. 76 of 1987 any other payment has been made to her. I have also perused the orders made from time to time in C.P. No. 76 of 1987. The orders show that considerable time was taken for payment of rent which was admittedly due to the petitioner from the company. In this petition, the company, of course, claims that it made payments to the Corporation because of the order of attachment. In that respect it may be noticed that though statutory notice of demand dated July 24, 1989, was served on the company and the order of attachmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for payment of rent for periods after July, 1989, the petitioner should serve on the respondent a fresh notice of demand and file another petition. I do not agree. The acceptance of the contention would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. It would also amount to giving undue premium to dishonest tenants/debtors. This court has to take into consideration the subsequent events particularly in a case like the present one where there is no dispute about the amount paid by the company either to the petitioner or to the Corporation. The courts have to adopt an approach which avoids multiplicity of proceedings. Furthermore, the company did not even send any reply to the notice of demand. Assuming that the company was liable to pay to the petitioner rent at the rate of Rs. 17,004.40 per month and not the enhanced rent, the full rent even at that rate was not paid either to the petitioner or even to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. On the own showing of the company, the first payment made to the Corporation, after service of statutory notice, was by cheque of December 11, 1989, and the second payment was made by cheque of January 11, 1990. The third payment was during pendency of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
