Suchit Prasad Jain v. Neeraj Puri

1. Petitioner is a lessee who has been defending a suit for possession, damages and mesne profits.

2. Hehas impugned order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court.

3. On 01.10.2022, when the parties appeared before the learned Trial Court, the counsel for defendant had made a statement that there was no dispute with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, execution of registered lease deed and also admitted that the defendant continued to be in the possession of the leased premises.

4. Taking these statements on record, the defendant was directed to CM(M) 1453/2022 2 deposit the arrears of unpaid admitted rent in the Court and to continue doing so as per the lease deed, failing which the defence of the defendant would be struck off.

5. Such order was challenged by the defendant, claiming, inter alia, that the amount due has not been specified and quantified.

6. It needs to be highlighted that when the present petition was taken up by this Bench, several orders were passed from time to time modifying the impugned order.

7. On 18.01.2023, after hearing arguments from both the sides and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, certain directions were passed whereby the petitioner herein was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- with the learned Trial Court within two weeks and there was a direction to deposit further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the balance amount in a phased manner. There was some direction with respect to the manner in which the tenanted premises was to be used, as the parties were also directed to ensure that the ingress and egress of the petitioner would not be obstructed and the electricity and water supply shall also be restored.

8. Fact remains that despite there being modifications, one after the another, this Court eventually observed in order dated 01.11.2023 observed that there was non-compliance of orders dated 22.12.2022, 20.01.2023 and 21.07.2023.

9. Therefore, this Court clarified that the learned Trial Court’s order dated 01.10.2022 stood restored and the learned Trial Court was given liberty to CM(M) 1453/2022 3 examine whether the defence of the petitioner was liable to be struck off or not for non-compliance of the deposit of unpaid rent, reserved under the lease.

10. It is now apprised that the defence has already been struck off by the learned Trial Court on 08.11.2023 and the petitioner herein has already challenged the above said order by filing a Revision Petition which is registered as Civil Revision Petition No. 214/2024 which is presently pending adjudication before this court and is now fixed for 12.09.2024.

11. It is also apprised that as far as the vacant and peacefulpossession of the leased premises is concerned, such possession is now back with the lessor and the dispute merely survives with respect to the damages and arrears of unpaid rent.

12. It is noticed that earlier when the various ordershad been passed in the present petition, these had been passed on the basis of the statements made by the counsel for the petitioner, who claimed that he was making those statements as per the instructions.

13. However, as per Mr. A P Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had never given any such instruction to his then counsel and, therefore, even otherwise, the petitioner was not bound by such statements.

14. This Court, in view of the above said factual situation, also issued a show-cause notice to then counsel asking him to file his affidavit and submitexplanation. It seems that such previous counsel Mr. Rakesh Chander Aggarwal did appear before this court on 08.01.2024. Fact remains that it is not clear whether he made statement on instructions or not but it seems that he CM(M) 1453/2022 4 is still re[resenting the same petitioner before the learned Trial Court.

15. Fact remains that as far as the dispute pertaining to the present petition is concerned, it pales into insignificance as this Court has already asked the learned Trial Court to proceed further with the matter and to strike off the defence if required on the basis of the earlier order passed by the Trial Court which was impugned before this Court.