Shri Umrao Singh vs Ruchsun Engineering (P) Ltd. and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011 and today this case is effective item No. 7 on the Regular Board. It is 12.30 p.m., however, no one appears for the parties. I have therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal u/s 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.01.2001 whereby the suit of the Appellant/plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent, possession and manse profits was dismissed.

The facts of the case are that Appellant/plaintiff claimed to be owner of the premises B-2/67, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, the ground floor of which was said to be leased out to the Respondent vide lease deed dated 10.4.1995 w.e.f. 5.9.1994. The Appellant has claimed that the Respondent issued cheques for rent which were dishonored and therefore, a notice dated 16.4.1996 was served terminating the tenancy, and since the Respondent failed to vacate, the subject suit came to be filed.

The Respondent appeared and contested the suit. It was contended that the Lease Deed was a forged and fabricated document and that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was stated that premises were taken on lease by Sh. Sunil Sharma, a Director of the Respondent company, in his individual capacity and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It was also contended that the cheques which were dishonored, were not issued by the Respondent company, but were issued by Sh. Sunil Sharma from his personal account.

After the pleadings were completed, the trial court framed the following issues:

Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

Whether the premises in dispute was let out to the Defendant for residential use and his director as mentioned in the plaint and Defendant has ever issued cheques towards rent as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP

Whether Sh. Sunil Kumar is a tenant in respect of suit property as claimed by the Defendant? OPD

Whether the tenancy of the Defendant was terminated/determined n accordance with the law as mentioned in the plaint? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the premises in dispute? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages? If so, at what rate, for what period and to what amount? OPP

Relief.

The relevant issues are issues No. 2 and 3. While dealing with these issues, the trial court has noted that the lease deed is signed only by Sh. Sunil Sharma and which does not bear the stamp and seal of the Respondent company. It is also noted in the impugned judgment that the cheques which were issued, Ex.P7 to P9, were issued from the personal account of Sh. Sunil Sharma and not from the account of the Defendant Company. It is further noted that in spite of an objection in the written statement by the Respondent that it was Sh. Sunil Sharma who was the tenant, no effort was made by the Appellant to impaled Sh. Sunil Sharma. Accordingly, the trial court, and in my opinion rightly, has held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the relationship of landlord and tenant was between the Appellant and Mr. Sunil Sharma. The trial court has also held that the legal notice terminating the tenancy was served on an address which was never the address of the Respondent Company and hence it was held that the said notice was not duly served.

The trial court in addition to the aforesaid findings on merits has also held that the Appellant had not valued the suit appropriately and has not paid proper court fees because so far as relief of possession was concerned no court fee was paid. The Appellant also did not pay the court fee on his claim of damages of Rs. 25,330/-. The trial court, has therefore rightly, required the plaintiff/Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 8,837.60 towards court fee.

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. This Court is not entitled to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the trial court merely because two views are possible. This Court interferes only if the view taken by the trial court is perverse and which causes injustice. The Appellant did not implead Sh. Sunil Sharma as a party to the case in spite of an objection having been taken in the written statement that it was Mr. Sunil Sharma who really was the tenant and who had issued the cheques of rent and also had signed the lease deed without any authorization and without any stamp or seal of the Respondent Company.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal which is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Interim orders are vacated. Trial court record be sent back.