Tamanna Singh v. Crescent Financial Service Pvt. Ltd.

1. The Revision Petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner (Defendant No. 4 in the Suit) against the Orders dated 06.07.2024, in Eviction Suit CIV DJ-33/2017, and 10.07.2024 in Execution Petition No.882/2018, vide which the Application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC filed on behalf of the Defendants seeking deletion of name of Tamanna Singh, has been dismissed.

2. The Respondent /Decree Holder, Crescent Financial Services Pvt Ltd, (Plaintiff in the Suit) a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had filed the Suit bearing No.

CIV. DJ No. 33/2017 seeking Eviction of Defendants from the Property bearing No. A-24, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, Near Metro Station, New Delhi-110027 (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”), in which a Preliminary Decree of Possession of the suit property had been passed vide Order dated 01.11.2017. Thereafter, the Decree Holder filed the Execution Petition bearing No. 882/2018 against the Petitioner/Defendants for execution of the Order dated 01.11.2017.

3. The specific averments had been made in the Plaint by the Respondent/Plaintiff-Crescent Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. that the Petitioner/Defendant No. 4, was the designated partner of M/s Uberlux Concepts LLP (Defendant No. 3), who in turn was a partner of M/s T.K. Wellness, another Partnership Firm along with M/s F Salon India. They approached the Respondent/Plaintiff-Crescent Financial Services Pvt Ltd to take the subject property due to its prime location and commercial value for carrying out the business of salon and spa under the brand name ‘F Salon and Spa’. Since, the Respondent/Plaintiff-Crescent Financial Services Pvt Ltd was apprehensive of giving the subject property on rent for a salon, the Petitioner/Defendant No. 4-Tamanna Singh gave her personal assurance. Consequently, the Respondent/Plaintiff-Crescent Financial Services Pvt Ltd entered into the Lease and Licence Agreement dated 10.02.2015 with the Respondent/Defendants on the agreed rent of Rs. 4,50,000/- plus Service Tax per month for the initial three years of the term, subject to escalation of 15% after every three years on the last paid rent. The Lease and Licence Agreement dated 10.02.2015 was duly registered.

4. The Respondent/Plaintiff-Crescent Financial Services Pvt Ltd had claimed that the Defendants defaulted in payment of regular rent and a Legal Notice dated 23.04.2016 was served upon calling upon them to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the subject property and also to pay the rent. However, the Defendants illegally continued to occupy the subject property and did not pay the rentals. Consequently, the Respondent/Plaintiff- Crescent Financial Services Pvt Ltd filed the Suit for Eviction against the Respondent/Defendants in which the Preliminary Decree had been passed vide Order dated 01.11.2017.

5. The Execution Petition 882/2018 was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff-Crescent Financial Services Pvt Ltd against the Respondent/Defendants for execution of the Decree dated 01.11.2017.

6. The Petitioner-Tamanna Singh filed an Application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, in the Suit as well as in the Execution Petition seeking deletion of her name on the ground that she cannot be held liable in her personal capacity for the liabilities taken up by the LLP.

7. The learned District Judge observed that from the registered Lease and Licence Agreement dated 10.02.2015, it was evident that the Defendant No.2-M/s F Salon India has signed the said Agreement as partner of M/s T.K. Wellness as well as the designated partner of the Defendant No. 1/M/s T.K. Wellness. The constitution of M/s T.K. Wellness is itself shrouded in mystery as it is stated to have two partners, one of which is the Defendant No. 1, which is stated to be non-existent at the time of execution of the said Agreement and presently is stated to be a defunct entity. Nothing is known about the nature of the other partner, namely, M/s F Salon India. The winding up or dissolution of the Licencee i.e., M/s T.K. Wellness, certainly has consequences, in terms of obligation arising out of the previous contracts. However, the Defendants have not stated anything as to how the aforesaid entity came to an end and how its pre-existing contractual obligations, are to be addressed. From the Lease and Licence Agreement executed on behalf of the three entities, it emerges that Defendant No. 2, Ms. Tamanna Singh has been described as a partner of M/s T.K. Wellness and as a designated partner of Defendant No. 3, the LLP.

8. Moreover, the Respondent/Plaintiff-Crescent Financial Services Pvt Ltd has averred in the Plaint that the Defendant No. 2 is a sole partner for the relevant period involved in the present Suit. If she is found to be the sole partner, the liability of the amount payable to Defendant No. 1 becomes personal in terms of Section 6 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act,

2008.

9. The learned District Judge has thus, concluded that the nature of liability of the Defendant No. 2 is a triable issue and the controversy involved in the Suit cannot be decided completely and effectively in the absence of Ms. Tamanna Singh. Accordingly, the Application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, has been dismissed vide Order dated 06.07.2024.

10. Aggrieved by the Order dated 06.07.2024, the present Revision Petitions have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant No. 4.

11. Submissions heard.

12. The only argument made on behalf of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Revisionist is that since M/s Uberlux Concepts LLP/Defendant No. 3 was an LLP of Ms. Tamanna Singh/Defendant No. 4, the Revisionist cannot be made personally liable for any outstanding dues found against any of the Defendants.

13. Pertinently, Ms. Tamanna Singh as Defendant No. 4 has been sued as partner of M/s Uberlux Concepts, LLP. On a specific Query, the learned counsel for the Revisionist stated that it is the Revisionist who is representing the Defendant No.3/M/s Uberlux Concepts, LLP and Defendant No. 1, M/s T.K. Wellness - as a partner of these firms. Whether she is personally liable or her liability is limited to the extent of LLP, is a moot point which can be adjudicated only after the evidence is led by the parties.