Vaksons Apa Optics Pvt. Ltd. vs R.G. Engineers and Consultants and Another

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

A short issue arises for consideration.

Vide two agreements, Ex.PW.2/2 and Ex.PW.2/3 both dated 16th August, 1995, R.G. Engineers and Consultants, a partnership firm through its partner Ram Lal Aggarwal, as owner/landlord of property bearing No. 50, Rajasthani, Udyog Nagar, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi gave possession thereof to the appellant recording that Rs. 7,500/ - per month was to be paid as rent and Rs. 7,500 was payable as consultancy fee, and that duration of the agreements was two years.

It has transpired at the trial that so called consultancy fee was a device created by the party to cheat the revenue and that in fact the monthly rent was Rs. 15,000/ -.

The agreements recorded a covenant that on expiry of the two years period, at the option of the appellant the arrangement would continue for a period of further two years with consultancy fee to be increased by 25%.

Vide Ex.DW.2/R1, on 28.12.1996, the tenant wrote as under:

To,

M/s R.G. Engineers and Consultants

50, Rajasthani Udyog Nagar,

G.T. Karnal Road,

Delhi-110033

Sub: Renewal/Extension of Agreement.

Dear Sir,

That as per Clause ''T'' of the Agreement of commission dated 16.08.1995, we are hereby exercising the option for extending the agreement of commission for next two years w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 with increase in commission by 25% as per the aforesaid clause. We are intimating you in time as per the clause.

This is for your kind information.

Thanking you

for Vaksons Apa Optics Pvt. Ltd.

(Dr. K.B. Jain)

Director

The landlord did not accept the extension of the lease and after issuing a notice dated 18th February, 1997 ''Mark B'' proceeded to determine the lease requiring possession to be handed over, possession not being handed over, a suit was filed for ejectment and mesne profits.

Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8th February, 2002 ejectment of the appellant has been directed and mesne profits awarded to the landlord are the agreed rent of Rs. 15,000/ - per month.

Adjustment of the security deposit in sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ - by the tenant to the landlord has given benefit of to the tenant.

The question which arose before learned Trial Judge was whether Ex.PW.2/2 and Ex.PW.2/3 could be relied upon by the parties.

Needless to state the basis of the said dispute was that the said two documents created a lease for a period of two years and as per law no lease pertaining to immovable property can be created except by a document in writing and registered.

The learned Trial Judge has noted that pertaining to a document requiring registration irrespective of it being not registered, where both parties rely upon the same, it can be looked into by the Court as an admitted document.

Learned Trial Judge has looked into the contents of Ex.PW.2/2 and Ex.PW.2/3 for the reason the appellants themselves took a defence under the two documents. It was pleaded, the appellant had exercised the right to have the lease extending by a period of two years.

Needless to state that the documents on which the appellant relied upon was Ex.DW.2/Rl being the letter dated 28.12.1996.

We need to decide whether a fresh lease should or should not have been executed pursuant to Ex.DW.2/Rl for the reason, if such, a lease was executed, it would have created a further right in favour of the appellant to occupy the subject property for a further period of two years.

Initial lease period was from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1997. The extending period would have been from 01.04.1997 ending on 31.03.1999.

In any case the appellant cannot occupy the premises beyond 31.03.1999.

For purposes of issue of mesne profits, whether occupation is authorized or not, is irrelevant for the reason that so called mesne profits awarded by the learned Trial Judge are nothing but the agreed rent, i.e., Rs. 15,000/ - per month.

It is unfortunate that the matter has continued to linger on in this Court without a realization that under no circumstances could the appellant continue to occupy the said premises beyond 31.03.1999.

We dismiss the appeal with cost.

At this stage learned Counsel for the appellant states that some time may be granted to the appellant to vacate the tenanted premises.

We grant appellant 6 months time to vacate the tenanted premises subject to the condition that appellant shall continue to pay use and occupation charges to the landlord each month at the rate specified in the impugned judgment and decree.

Further, all charges for water and electricity etc. as per actual consumption shall be borne by the appellant.

We further direct the Director/Authorized Representative of the appellant to file an affidavit by way of an undertaking in this Court within 2 weeks from today; the undertaking would be on the terms above.

At this stage, we note that the respondents have filed cross objections which are available at page 121 to 124 of the appellant''s paper book. Unfortunately, till date the cross objections were not pressed and hence even notice of the cross objections has not been issued to the appellant.

The cross objections have even not been numbered by the Registry.

Be that as it may, learned Counsel for the respondent does not press the cross objections. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed.