VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2018 › High Court of Delhi

Audio Voice India Private Limited v. Shri Vivek Khanna & Another

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
11 April 2018
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
CS(OS) 107/2018

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. APRIL 11, 2018/"gsr/bs"

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th April, 2018. + CS(OS) 107/2018, IA No.4622/2018 (u/S 151 CPC) & IA No.4633/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) AUDIO VOICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Adv. Versus VIVEK KHANNA & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Dr. Man Mohan Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the two defendants viz. Vivek Khanna and Shikha Khanna, for i) declaration that Clause 19 of the registered Lease Deed dated 20th May, 2013 between the parties is null, void, inoperative and unenforceable; ii) declaration that there is no valid termination of the registered Lease Deed dated 20th May, 2013 and that the said Lease Deed subsists and the plaintiff has a legal right to remain in occupation of property No.D-27, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024 till 30th June, 2019, as long as the plaintiff continues to pay the contracted rent; iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the aforesaid premises comprising of basement ad-measuring 900 sq. ft. and ground floor ad-measuring 1800 sq. ft., as threatened by the defendants; and, iv) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to take possession of the property from the plaintiff in accordance with law. 2. Clause 19 of the registered Lease Deed dated 20th May, 2013 between the parties, qua which the relief of declaration aforesaid is claimed, is as under: "19. That the lessee shall hand over vacant and physical possession of the said premises to the Lessor on the expiry or prior termination of this agreement. In case the lessee does not vacate the premises, lessor can break the lock of the premises and take over the possession while Lessee has no right to make any sort of police case." 3. The suit came up first before this Court on 15th March, 2018 when the same was entertained and summons thereof ordered to be issued and vide ex parte ad-interim order, the defendants restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the basement and ground floor of property aforesaid and a Commissioner also appointed to visit the property and to verify the possession of the plaintiff. 4. Both the defendants have filed a joint written statement and to which a replication has been filed by the plaintiff. The application of the defendants being IA No.4633/2018 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) came up first before this Court on 10th April, 2018 when none appeared for the plaintiff and the counsel for the plaintiff on being telephonically contacted expressed inability to appear. Accordingly, the matter was listed for today. 5. The counsel for the plaintiff appears. 6. I have at the outset only enquired from the counsel for the defendants whether the defendants, who as per the plaintiff also claim to have terminated the lease of the plaintiff and further claim to be entitled to eject the plaintiff from the premises, have instituted any suit for ejectment of the plaintiff from the premises. 7. The counsel for the defendants however, referring to Clause 16 of the Lease Deed dated 20th May, 2013 as under: "16. That this lease can be terminated by the Lessor or the Lessee even before the expiry of the lease period by giving three month"s written notice to the other party. That the Lessor reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time in case of breach of any of the terms and conditions set out above." states that the defendants are not required to litigate with the plaintiff and after notice of three months which has already been given to the plaintiff, are entitled under Clause 19 supra to take back the possession without going to the Court. 8. In my opinion, the rule of law does not permit a person who has allowed another to lawfully occupy the premises, even if such another overstays, to take the law into his own hands and to forcibly take possession. The rule of law provides for such

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.