Execution of a lease deed which is subsequent to the previous deed by a trustee of a foundation is valid though the trustee is removed before the execution of the subsequent lease deed.

Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 10th December 2019

M/S Espire Infolabs Pvt. Ltd v. Sadhana Foundation., Civil Appeal No(s). 9265 of 2019

BACKGROUND

• The landlord – respondent herein, has leased out the land through a registered lease deed dated 01.01.2013 for which the tenant is liable to a pay the lease amount of Rs.18,43,900/- per month.
• Later on, there was a subsequent registered lease deed dated 01.09.2015 which is effective from 01.03.205 in which the rent is Rs.7,50,000/- per month.
• In addition to this, according to Clause 1(c) of the registration lease deed dated 01.09.205, that tenant was entitled to spend an amount of Rs.9 crores for developing the infrastructure in the tenant premises and was entitled to adjust the same against the rent.
•  The landlord has filed a petition claiming rent for the period 01.11.2015 to 31.01.2017 along with the send petition the landlord has also filed another petition claiming rent for 01.01.2013 to 30.10.2015. the landlord has claimed rent @ Rs.18,43,900/- per month relying upon the lease deed dated 01.01.2013.
• In the eviction petition the Rent Controller determined the provisional rent @ Rs.7,50,000/- per month. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and the SLP filed against the same was dismissed. By this court.
• After the first petition was decided, the second petition was filed claiming rent for the period, 01.11.2015 to 31.01.2017. The Rent Controller again fixed the provisional rent @ Rs.7,50,500 per month and the High Court relying upon the earlier orders has upheld the same.
• Later, the counsel for the respondent (landlord) submits that the second lease deed was executed on the behalf of the Trust by one Shri Ajay Sharma. According to him, Ajay Sharma is the same person who had signed the lease deed of 2013 and Ajay Sharma was removed as the Trustee of the Trust much before the lease deed of 2015 was executed and registered.
• At the outset, it was noted that the lease deed of 2013 relied upon by the landlord is an un­registered one, and we are not sure if it is properly stamped and, therefore, at this stage the said lease deed cannot be relied upon, being inadmissible in evidence.

ISSUES

• Whether the lease deed of 2013 or the lease deed of 2015 will govern the rights of the parties?
• Whether Shri Ajay Sharma was a trustee and entitled to execute the lease deed of 2015?
• If the lease deed of 2015 governs the rights of the parties, then what amount has been spent by the appellant?

HELD

•  It was held that after the period of the first eviction petition in which it has been held that Rs.7.50 lakhs per month should be paid by the tenant as provisional rent, we direct that w.e.f. 01.11.2015, the tenant shall be liable to pay rent @ Rs.3.75 lakhs per month;
• This order shall be complied with till the proceedings are finally disposed of by the Rent Controller and the landlord shall not be required to file any separate eviction petition for the subsequent periods;
• We direct that the tenant shall deposit rent @ Rs.3.75 lakhs per month from 01.11.2015 till 30.11.2019, after adjusting any payment which may have been made by 31.01.2020.
• The tenant shall also furnish tangible surety in a sum of Rs.3 crores to the Rent Controller so that if the case is decided against the tenant, the landlord does not have to run after him to collect the money.
• The Rent Controller is directed to take up the matter on an urgent basis and, if necessary, try the same on day­-to-­day basis and dispose of the same within 6 months from today.
• With the above directions, the Civil Appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.