Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, CCJ-CUM-ARC (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
U-12/09/05
Sh. R. David
S/o Sh. H. David
R/o 31/7, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi
Partner of
M/s. David Paint Industries
At C/157, Maya Puri Industrial Area,
Phase II, New Delhi .......Petitioner
Vs.
Harbans Singh
C/o Anand Sons Trade Linkers
At C/157, Maya Puri Industrial Area,
Phase II, New Delhi 110 014 .....Respondent
Date of institution : 12.07.2002 Date on which reserved for judgment : 22.05.2012 Date of decision : 22.05.2012 Judgement
Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose off a petition under Section 45 of Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioner against the respondent. Brief facts of the case as under :
1. The petitioner has alleged that the firm of the petitioner namely M/s. David Paint Industries is tenant under the respondent in respect of one hall situated at ground floor of the factory premises bearing no. C/157, Maya Puri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi -110 014, on the monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- per month. It is further alleged that it was agreed by the respondent to supply the electricity and electricity charges were payable as per consumption of the meter at the exorbitant rate of Rs. 6 per unit and these charges are being charged by the respondent in addition to misuse U12/09/05 R. David Vs. Harbans Singh 1/5 charges levied by Delhi Vidut Board. It is further alleged that the respondent is doing the trade of the electricity supply at exorbitant rate from the tenant just to black mail them. It is further alleged that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as security amount to the respondent. It is further alleged in the month of June 2001, the respondent refused to receive the rent and demanded a rent of Rs. 10,000/- and the petitioner had to issue a cheque for Rs. 10,000/-, but the same was dishonored, however the rent was paid in cash later on. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been paying rent regularly. It is further alleged that the month of February 2002, the respondent forced the petitioner to enhance the rent to Rs. 3,500/- per month and in order to increase the rent. Further the respondent has disconnected the electricity supply of the petitioner through sub-meter on 01.04.2002 without any reason and just cause. It is further alleged that the petitioner got served a legal notice dated 02.05.2002 upon the respondent to restore the electricity supply, but the respondent refused to reconnect the electricity and the petitioner is also regularly suffering damages, due to non- supply of electricity. It is prayed that the respondent be directed to restore the electricity supply or in alternative, DVB be directed to provide independent electricity connection to the petitioner.
2. The respondent has filed written statement thereby alleging that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and M/s. David Paint Industries is a licensee under M/s. Anand Sons Trade Linkers i.e. a partnership firm. It is further alleged that the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties as the partnership firm has not been impleaded in this case and petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the petitioner was running a pollution unit which has been shut down by the Government. It is further alleged that the license fee of the premises was Rs. 13,000/- per month and the respondent was maintaining an account of the petitioner's firm and petitioner in arrears of license fee since February 2002. It is further alleged that the respondent had been making the payment of the electricity charges as per consumption of sub-meter, but it is denied that he has paid any advance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It U12/09/05 R. David Vs. Harbans Singh 2/5 is denied that the petitioner is tenant for monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- or Rs. 3,500/- per month. It is further denied that the respondent is trying to enhance the rent of the premises or the electricity has been disconnected in order to get vacated the premises. It is further alleged that the Government of India has served a legal notice dated 26.4.2002 under Section 31 (a) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and thereafter the petitioner has discontinued the manufacturing activities in the premises and stopped electricity consumption. The respondent has denied all the allegations of the petitioner and has prayed that this petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner has filed replication to the written Statement and has denied the allegations of the petitioner that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is further alleged that agreement dated 01.05.1996 is a forged document. Petitioner has denied all the allegations of the respondent and reaffirmed his pleadings.
4. To prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and closed PE. The respondent has tendered her affidavit in examination in chief, but failed to appear before the court despite many opportunities for cross examination, due to examination in chief of RW-1 was also dispensed with on 11.01.2000. As such the respondent has not examined any witness and RE was closed on 11.01.2010.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. Present petition under Section 45 of Delhi Rent Control Act has been filed by the petitioner in the capacity of partner of M/s. Davit Paint Industries. It is admitted fact that M/s. Davit Paint Industries is the partnership firm and a partnership firm may represent itself before the court through partners. A petition may be filed on behalf of partnership firm by the partners in the capacity partners of the firm but a partnership firm cannot be represented by a sole partner in the absence of other partners as well as firm. It is not a disputed fact that the partnership firm is still in existence and PW-1 has U12/09/05 R. David Vs. Harbans Singh 3/5 admitted that the partnership firm has not been dissolved. If the partnership is in existence then this petition should have been filed by firm through partners. A partnership firm may not be represented by a single partner, due to a single partner has no locus standi to represent firm. In a rent petition, relationship of landlord and tenant is very necessary and PW-1 has admitted that the premises is in occupation of the partnership firm. If the partnership firm is a tenant and has a separate entity then a petition filed by one partner is not maintainable.
6. Further, it is defence of the respondent that the petitioner or his firm is not the tenant in the tenanted premises and firm was only licensee. The license agreements dated 01.05.1996 and 01.04.1999 have been placed on record. Though these documents have not been proved by the respondent in the absence of examination of any witness, yet these documents were put to the PW-1 his during cross examination, PW-1 has admitted that the license agreements are bearing his the signature or signature of his brother. Even a letter Ex. PW1/R1 has been admitted by PW-1 in which a payment of license fee has been shown. As per these documents, it is clear that in the license fee was being paid by the petitioner and not the rent. Further, it has been admitted by PW-1 that the licence agreement dated 01.04.1999 is bearing his signature. It is further deposed that he has not taken any legal steps against the respondent for declaring the license agreement invalid. By admission of the petitioner, it is clear on record that the petitioner was not a tenant in the tenanted premises. As per content of agreement dated 01.05.1996, it was never intended by the parties to create a tenancy in respect of the tenanted premises and a specific and separate condition has been inserted in the license agreement that the license was not intended to create a tenancy. If it was not the interest of the parties to create a tenancy, a tenancy right in the tenanted premises is out of question. As such the petitioner is not the tenant in the tenanted premises.
7. Besides it, it is revealed by the license agreement that the U12/09/05 R. David Vs. Harbans Singh 4/5 respondent entered into license agreement on behalf of one M/s. Anand Sons Trade Linkers which is a partnership firm and by executing this licence deed by the respondent on behalf of partnership firm does not make the respondent responsible in his personal capacity. In fact, partnership firm M/s. Anand Sons Trade Linkers was a necessary party in this case, it has not been impleaded, accordingly this petition is also bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. As such the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable on the legal ground, hence dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Dated:- 22.05.2012 (Devender Kumar)
Announced in the open Court. CCJ-cum-ARC (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
U12/09/05 R. David Vs. Harbans Singh 5/5