NONREPORTABLE
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | | |
|---|
| CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION | |
| | CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9265 OF 2019 | |
|---|
| (@ | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3885 OF 2018) | | |
| M/S ESPIRE INFOLABS PVT LTD | | | | …APPELLANT(S) |
|---|
Versus
| SADHANA FOUNDATION | | | | …RESPONDENT(S) |
|---|
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
| 2. | | The present appeal arises from a claim of the landlord – |
|---|
respondent herein, claiming rent for the period 01.11.2015 to
31.01.2017. We may point out that another petition was filed by
the landlord claiming rent for the period 01.01.2013 to
30.10.2015. The landlord claimed rent @ Rs.18,43,900/ per
month relying upon the lease deed dated 01.01.2013. The stand
1
of the tenant – appellant herein, is that, in fact, there was a
subsequent registered lease deed dated 01.09.2015 which is
effective from 01.03.2015 in which the rent is @ Rs.7,50,000/
per month. In addition thereto, it is claimed that as per Clause
1(c) of the registered lease deed dated 01.09.2015, the tenant was
entitled to spend an amount of Rs.9 crores for developing the
infrastructure in the tenanted premises and was entitled to
adjust the same against the rent.
| 3. | | In the eviction petition the Rent Controller determined the |
|---|
provisional rent @ Rs.7,50,000/ per month. The Punjab and
Haryana High Court confirmed the order of the Rent Controller
and the SLP filed against the same was dismissed by this Court.
As far as the registered lease deed of 2015 is concerned, Clause
1(c) of the same reads as follows:
| “1(c) | | In order to avoid any dispute it is hereby agreed |
|---|
| by and between the parties to these presents, that as | | | |
| mentioned hereinabove, the Lessor had handed over the | | | |
| said premises to the Lessee or bareshell basis and THE | | | |
| LESSEE has agreed to do all the internal work in the | | | |
| Demised Premises including furnitures and fixtures, air | | | |
| conditioning, lighting, flooring, false ceiling, bathroom | | | |
| etc. so as to bring it to the standard of and International | | | |
| Class IT Office. It has been agreed between the Lessor | | | |
| and the Lessee that the Lessee shall bear the cost of the | | | |
| same which shall be approximately 9 Crores. This | | | |
| amount will be payable by the Lessor to the Lessee and | | | |
| the Lessee shall adjust the same from the rent due to the | | | |
| Lessor till the entire amount is paid. Hence the Lessee | | | |
| will not be liable to pay any rent to the Lessor unless it | | | |
2
| has recovered the entire amount of approximately 9 | |
|---|
| Crores from the rent due to Lessor.” | |
After the first petition was decided, the second petition was filed
claiming rent for the period, 01.11.2015 to 31.01.2017. The Rent
Controller again fixed the provisional rent @ Rs.7.50 lakhs per
month and the High Court relying upon the earlier orders has
upheld the same. This order is in challenge before us.
| 4. | | Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel for the |
|---|
appellant submits that as per Clause 1(c), the tenant is entitled to
adjust the amount payable to the landlord and that by now more
than Rs. 3 crores have been paid, and in case the entire amount
is paid, the appellant will have no way of recovering this amount,
if it is finally held that the tenant is entitled to adjust the rent
against the amount spent. He also urged that in the earlier
petition the tenant had not placed on record any material to show
the amount of money spent for developing the infrastructure but
in this petition such material has been placed on record. He also
made various other submissions with regard to the relationship
between the parties but we are not going into the same. On the
other hand, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent submits that the lease deed of 2013 should be
3
relied upon and cannot be ignored at this stage. He further
submits that even if rent of Rs.7.50 lakhs has to be paid, the
respondent Trust cannot be deprived of this rent. He also
submits that the second lease deed was executed on behalf of the
Trust by one Shri Ajay Sharma. According to him, Ajay Sharma
is the same person who had signed the lease deed of 2013 and
Ajay Sharma was removed as the Trustee of the Trust much
before the lease deed of 2015 was executed and registered. On
the other hand, Mr. Maninder Singh contends that, in fact, Ajay
Sharma’s removal is not proper and he is fully empowered to
execute and register the sale deed.
| 5. | | There are various disputed issues involved. At the outset, |
|---|
we may note that the lease deed of 2013 relied upon by the
landlord is an unregistered one, and we are not sure if it is
properly stamped and, therefore, at this stage the said lease deed
cannot be relied upon, being inadmissible in evidence. The first
issue is whether the lease deed of 2013 or the lease deed of 2015
will govern the rights of the parties. The second issue is whether
Shri Ajay Sharma was a trustee and entitled to execute the lease
deed of 2015. The third issue would be that even if the lease deed
of 2015 governs the rights of the parties, what amount has been
4
spent by the appellant. Here, it would be pertinent to add that
whereas in the first petition the appellant had led no evidence to
show that he had spent any amount, in this petition some
material has been placed on record. However, all this will have to
be tested by leading evidence. We are of the view that all these
contentious issues cannot be decided at this stage. Evidence will
have to be led by the parties to prove their case. Equities must be
balanced at this stage, and we feel that the equities must be
balanced in such a manner that when the final petition is decided
both the parties should not be put to loss.
| 6. | | In view of the above, we dispose of this appeal with the |
|---|
following directions :
| (i) | | That after the period of the first eviction petition in |
|---|
which it has been held that Rs.7.50 lakhs per month should be
paid by the tenant as provisional rent, we direct that w.e.f.
01.11.2015, the tenant shall be liable to pay rent @ Rs.3.75
lakhs per month;
| (ii) | | This order shall be complied with till the proceedings |
|---|
are finally disposed of by the Rent Controller and the landlord
shall not be required to file any separate eviction petition for the
subsequent periods;
5
| (iii) | | We direct that the tenant shall deposit rent @ Rs.3.75 |
|---|
lakhs per month from 01.11.2015 till 30.11.2019, after
adjusting any payment which may have been made by
31.01.2020.
| (v) | | The tenant shall also furnish tangible surety in a sum |
|---|
of Rs.3 crores to the Rent Controller so that if the case is decided
against the tenant, the landlord does not have to run after him
to collect the money.
| (vi) | | The Rent Controller is directed to take up the matter |
|---|
on an urgent basis and, if necessary, try the same on daytoday
basis and dispose of the same within 6 months from today.
| 7. | | With the above directions, the Civil Appeal stands disposed |
|---|
of. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
| …………………………….J. | |
|---|
| (S. ABDUL NAZEER) |
| ……………………………..J. | |
|---|
| (DEEPAK GUPTA) |
| New Delhi | |
|---|
| December 09, 2019 | |
6
