1992 (9) TMI 378 - HC - Indian Laws

Plaintiffs Ordered to Pay Rent Arrears & Future Rent with Interest, Court Maintains Eviction Restraint

The court directed the plaintiffs to pay arrears and future rent at specified rates with interest, maintaining interim orders restraining eviction if ... - Issues Involved:1. Temporary Injunction2. Non-payment of Rent3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel4. Calculation of Shed Price5. Jurisdiction of Civil CourtIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Temporary Injunction:The plaintiffs filed applications under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from taking any action detrimental to their interests regarding the industrial sheds in their possession and to stay the eviction proceedings initiated by defendant No. 3 before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The court initially granted interim relief by restraining the Estate Officer from passing any final order of eviction.2. Non-payment of Rent:The plaintiffs were allotted industrial sheds under a scheme by the Delhi Administration and Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (DSIDC) in 1976. They were required to pay monthly rent and other charges as per the agreement. However, the plaintiffs failed to pay the rent as agreed and only paid small sums towards the rentals. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not act according to the letters from DSIDC dated January 23, 1979, and May 1, 1982, which asked them to pay arrears at reduced rates.3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:The plaintiffs argued that the agreements were ad hoc and that DSIDC had made a categorical representation to transfer the sheds on a hire purchase basis, which led them to alter their position. The court held that the plaintiffs' conduct did not warrant the application of promissory estoppel as they did not fulfill their obligations under the agreements or the subsequent letters from DSIDC. The court emphasized that the doctrine of promissory estoppel requires one party to alter its position based on the representation of the other, which was not evident in this case.4. Calculation of Shed Price:The plaintiffs disputed the price of the sheds offered by DSIDC on a hire purchase basis, arguing that the price should be based on the CPWD rates prevalent in 1975-76. DSIDC offered the sheds at various rates in 1986, 1987, and 1989, which included interest components due to the plaintiffs' failure to make timely payments. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide any cogent reasons for not paying the rent as per the agreements or the reduced rates offered in the letters from DSIDC. The court directed the plaintiffs to pay arrears and future rent at the rates mentioned in the letters dated January 23, 1979, and May 1, 1982, with interest at 10% per annum from the date they were put in possession of the sheds.5. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:The defendants argued that the premises in question were public premises under the Act and that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred. The plaintiffs contended that the question of the shed's evaluation could not be decided by the Estate Officer and was beyond the scope of the Act. The court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred concerning the question of the shed's price.Conclusion:The court disposed of the applications, directing the plaintiffs to pay the arrears and future rent at the rates mentioned in the letters dated January 23, 1979, and May 1, 1982, with interest at 10% per annum. The interim orders restraining the Estate Officer from passing any final order of eviction would remain in force if the plaintiffs complied with the payment directions within ten days. The court also held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred concerning the question of the shed's price.