Oral understanding against a written agreement is not admissible

Case Covered:

M/s Eternity Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Raj Kumar Dhingra

Read the full text of the case here.

Facts of the case:

1. RFA 794/2019 is against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No.9447/2016 pertaining to the third floor of property bearing no.30, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi, admeasuring 3,000 sq.ft.

2. RFA 782/2019 is against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No.9445/2016, pertaining to the Fourth floor and terrace floor of property bearing no.30, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi, admeasuring 5,000 sq.ft. approx.

3. The third floor of the property was given on rent by the respondent herein vide unregistered lease deed dated 10.03.2015, for a monthly rental of Rs.2,50,000/- per month, excluding taxes. The lease was initially for nine years with a lock-in period between 22.06.2015 till 21.06.2018. However since it was an unregistered lease, the tenancy has to be considered as the month to month.

4. Similarly, the Fourth floor and terrace floor was let out vide unregistered lease deed dated 06.04.2015 with similar conditions with a monthly rental of Rs.2,50,000/-, excluding taxes; with a lock-in period from 22.06.2015 till 21.06.2018.

Related Topic:
Advisory for GST before finalising the BOA for IT

Observations of the court:

On query to the learned counsel for the appellant as to if the rental for the period from 22.06.2015 till 16.08.2015 was ever cleared after the receipt of the notice dated 05.08.2016 the appellant replied since further renovation was required and since it was delayed on account of non-availability of water and electricity connection so there was an oral understanding that the rent would be cleared only after the entire renovation is completed. This plea of the appellant is against the terms of lease deeds wherein the rent free period is only up to 22.06.2015. Moreso an alleged oral understanding against a written document (Lease Deed) would be hit by Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence cannot be relied upon.

Lastly it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent a security deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- was lying with the respondent, hence the arrears, if any, ought to have been adjusted against such security. This argument is highly misconceived since the security is returnable only after the termination of the lease deed and that too only when there is no claim left against the tenant.

Judgement of the court:

Thus there is no merit in these appeals and both are accordingly dismissed. The appellant is granted two weeks time, per his request to remove its furniture and fixtures from the subject premises, lest would be liable to pay damages @ Rs.50,000/- per day for all the three floors, w.e.f. the date of this judgment till removal of such furniture and fixtures and handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent herein. Of course, the suit for recovery of mesne profit, charges for furniture and fixture etc., pending before the learned Trial Court, may continue.

Both the appeals stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Order dasti.

Download the copy: