PREM NARAIN MISRA Vs. FAIRE BROTHERS EXPORT AND IMPORT LTD
LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-398
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 12,2007

PREM NARAIN MISRA Appellant
VERSUS
Faire Brothers Export And Import Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The spinal question which needs appraisal is: whether there were adequate admissions made by the defendant/appellant warranting passing of the decree of possession in favour of the respondent herein. The learned Single Judge has allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) moved by the respondent vide order dated 14.12.2004 and consequently passed the decree for possession. The suit is pending further consideration for inquiry about the mesne profits. The appellant is not satisfied with that order and submits that there were no sufficient admissions and/or unambiguous and unconditional admissions on record on the basis whereof such a decree should have been passed. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may note the essential facts of the case and the purported admissions.
(2.) The respondent is the owner of property bearing Municipal No. B-22/3, Okhla Industrial Area. It entered into a purported licence agreement dated 6.6.1998 with the appellant as per which 2300 sq. ft. space in the basement of the said building (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was given to the appellant. On behalf of the respondent company one Sh. Bhupinder Katyal, its director signed the agreement. Licence fee was fixed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month and the licence was initially for a period of 11 months as provided in clause 2. This could be extended for another three terms of 11 months each. It seems that after the expiry of the aforesaid licence agreement on 30.5.99, no further agreement was entered into immediately. However, the parties thereafter executed another agreement dated 27.4.2000 vide which same premises were let out by the respondent to the appellant at monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-. As per clause (1) of the agreement the period of the agreement was six years with effect from the date of possession. In clause 2 it was provided that agreement shall commence from 27.4.2000 and shall be valid for a term of six years. As per clause (3), this agreement could be extended at the option of the appellant for one term of five years on the same terms and conditions.
(3.) Admittedly, the agreement dated 27.4.2000 is an unregistered document executed on a stamp of Rs. 10/-. Therefore, neither it is properly stamped nor it is registered though the registration is compulsory having regard to the fact that period of tenancy was stipulated as six years.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.