Pradyuman Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs. Orchid Salon Services PVT LTD. & Anr

Held

The Court held that the defendant no.1 cannot set up an oral agreement contradicting the registered lease deed, as it is barred by Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as no facts falling within the provisos were pleaded. Therefore, there was no triable issue regarding the claim for rent/mesne profits from June 9, 2017, to October 12, 2018, at the admitted rate of rent. The Court found no triable issue regarding the claim for service tax/GST, holding that the liability is of the landlord and the tenant is to reimburse, and the axe would fall on the landlord if not deposited. However, this liability was limited to the term of the lease (till December 31, 2017), not till the date of vacation, as possession thereafter was as an unauthorized occupant. The claim for TDS non-deposit was also undisputed. The Court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover lift maintenance charges as they could not show any document of payment by them. A decree was passed for recovery of rent/mesne profits, service tax/GST, TDS non-deposit, and costs.

Facts

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, service tax/GST, lift maintenance charges, and TDS non-deposit against Orchid Salon Services Pvt. Ltd. (defendant no.1) and Priyanav Wellness Pvt. Ltd. (defendant no.2). A decree for ejectment was passed, and possession was recovered. The suit proceeded for monetary claims. Defendant no.1 was directed to deposit admitted arrears of rent, but failed to comply, leading to the plaintiffs being permitted to execute the direction. Defendant no.1 also filed an affidavit of assets. The plaintiffs claimed rent from June 9, 2017, to December 31, 2017, and mesne profits thereafter at the last paid rent rate. Defendant no.1 contended an oral agreement where defendant no.2 would occupy and be liable. Defendant no.2 admitted possession with defendant no.1 but denied liability for rent. The plaintiffs also claimed service tax/GST and TDS non-deposit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the defendant no.1 can set up an oral agreement contradicting the registered lease deed, thereby barring the claim for rent and mesne profits (Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872)? - Petitioner's argument: The defendant no.1 cannot set up an oral agreement in contradiction to the registered lease deed, as it is barred by Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and no facts falling within its provisos were pleaded. - Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded. 2. Whether the defendant no.1 is liable for service tax/GST and TDS non-deposit as per the lease deed? - Petitioner's argument: Defendant no.1 is liable for service tax/GST and TDS non-deposit under the lease. The argument that the liability was only to deposit with authorities and not pay the landlord was misconceived. The liability for service tax/GST falls on the landlord if not deposited by the tenant. - Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover lift maintenance charges without proving payment by them? - Petitioner's argument: Not recorded. - Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded.