AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code of Civil Procedure) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010 whereby the suit of the Respondent/landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and for mesne profits has been decreed.
The facts of the case are that under a registered lease deed dated 8.11.2006, the Appellant/Defendant took on lease the premises bearing No. 103, First Floor, Dwarka Deep Building, Plot No. 8, MLU, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi-75 for a period of 9 years. The Appellant/Defendant was a franchisee of Fast Food Chain M/s Pizza Corner. The premises had an area of 1124 sq.ft. The admitted rate of rent was Rs. 62,000/- per month. The period in question in the present case was from 1.4.2009 to 30.6.2009 for the admitted rate of rent of Rs. 62,000/- and thereafter at Rs. 77,500/- per month of mesne profits till 25.11.2009 when the premises were vacated. The tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 4.5.2009. The Respondent/Plaintiff also additionally claimed a sum of Rs. 15,840/- towards arrears of electricity charges.
The Appellant/Defendant contested the suit and claimed that the tenant was not the Appellant with whom the lease deed was entered into, and, the tenancy was actually of M/s Global Franchise Architects India Private Ltd. and therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of said entity. It was claimed that the rent of the suit premises was liable to be paid by the said M/s Global Franchise Architects India Private Ltd., which is presently known as M/s Pizza Corner Pvt. Ltd.
The trial court has decreed the suit with respect to rent at the admitted rate of Rs. 62,000/- from 1.4.2009 till 30.6.2009, however, since the Respondent/Plaintiff already paid a sum of Rs. 1,86,000/- as security, therefore, adjusting the security nothing was held to be payable for this period. As per the registered lease deed, Ex. PW1/2, since increase was to be made in the rate of rent w.e.f. 1.7.2009 to Rs. 77,500/- per month therefore, the trial court for the period from 1.7.2009 to 25.11.2009 passed a decree for mesne profits at Rs. 77,500/- per month. The Respondent/Plaintiff had summoned the witness from the electricity authority BSES to show in fact the electricity dues were payable at Rs. 31,438/- as per Ex. PW2/1, but since in the plaint the claim was restricted to Rs. 15,840/-, the decree was also passed with respect to this lesser amount.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant sought to argue that there was a simultaneous oral agreement by which, instead of the Appellant M/s Global Franchise Architects India Private Ltd. was the tenant and therefore, it is the only entity which was liable to pay the rent. This argument of the counsel for the Appellant is hit by the provision of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and which provide that once there is a written document containing the terms, no oral agreement can be set up in conflict with the written terms of the document. I, therefore, hold that it was the Appellant/Defendant who was the tenant in the premises and not M/s Global Franchise Architects India Private Ltd. The trial court has therefore, rightly held the Appellant liable to pay the rent and the mesne profits.
The trial court, I may note, has referred to the admission of the witness of the Appellant/Defendant where he admitted that the Appellant was liable to pay charges of Rs. 77,500/- per month w.e.f. 1.7.2009. This witness of the Defendant also admitted that there was no clause in the lease agreement Ex. PW1/2 that the terms of the franchisee agreement between the Appellant and M/s Global Franchise Architects India Private Ltd./M/s Pizza Corner India Pvt. Ltd. will be part and parcel of the lease agreement. This witness also admitted that the rent was only paid up to March, 2009 and the possession of the suit premises was with the Appellant/Defendant till 25.11.2009. These facts have been referred to by the trial court in para 20 of the impugned judgment.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The Appellant being a tenant was bound to pay the admitted rental charges of Rs. 62,000/- till 30.6.2009 and thereafter mesne profits at 77,500/- from 1.7.2009 till 25.11.2009 along with the electricity charges.
The appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.