Court dismisses appeal, grants time to comply with deposit order; funds withheld until final adjudication

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant/defendant was granted additional time to comply with the deposit order. The Court directed that the deposited amount should not be released to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff until the final adjudication of the suit. The judgment highlights the Court's discretion under Order XV-A of the CPC to direct deposits reflecting the probable market rent, even if disputed by the tenant, to ensure fairness during the litigation process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Commission Agency Agreements.
2. Ownership of the property.
3. Determination of the rent amount.
4. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
5. The direction for deposit under Order XV-A of the CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Commission Agency Agreements:
The appellant/defendant contested the validity of the Commission Agency Agreements dated 31st August, 2002, and 31st August, 2006, claiming they were fraudulently executed by making the appellant/defendant sign blank papers. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff, however, maintained that these agreements were genuine and that the appellant/defendant had guaranteed payment under these agreements.

2. Ownership of the Property:
The appellant/defendant denied the ownership of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff over the property in question. This issue was raised as a defense in the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant.

3. Determination of the Rent Amount:
The core issue was the determination of the rent amount. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff claimed the rent was Rs. 3 lakhs per month, while the appellant/defendant contended it was Rs. 1,000 per month. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant/defendant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh per month during the pendency of the suit, considering the arguments and the material presented.

4. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
The appellant/defendant argued that the suit for recovery of possession was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as the rent was Rs. 1,000 per month. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff, however, claimed the rent was Rs. 3 lakhs per month, making the provisions of the Rent Act inapplicable.

5. The Direction for Deposit under Order XV-A of the CPC:
The learned Single Judge directed the appellant/defendant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh per month under Order XV-A of the CPC. The appellant/defendant argued that no direction for deposit in excess of the admitted rent amount (Rs. 1,000 per month) could be issued. The Court, however, held that Order XV-A of the CPC allows the Court to direct deposit of an amount commensurate with the market rent or higher than the admitted rent, to mitigate the hardship to the landlord during the pendency of the eviction suit.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Validity of the Commission Agency Agreements:
The appellant/defendant denied the authenticity of the Commission Agency Agreements, alleging they were signed under fraudulent circumstances. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff, however, relied on these agreements to substantiate the claim of the rent amount and the terms of tenancy. The Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the learned Single Judge's direction based on these agreements.

Ownership of the Property:
The appellant/defendant's challenge to the ownership of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was noted, but the Court did not delve deeply into this issue as it was not central to the determination of the interim deposit order under Order XV-A of the CPC.

Determination of the Rent Amount:
The dispute over the rent amount was a significant issue. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments and the lack of conclusive documentary evidence from both parties, directed a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh per month. The Court noted that the property in question was a valuable commercial property, and it was unlikely to have been let out at a rent below Rs. 3,500 per month, which would fall under the Rent Act.

Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
The appellant/defendant's argument that the suit was barred by the Rent Act was based on the claim that the rent was Rs. 1,000 per month. The Court, however, found that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff's claim of Rs. 3 lakhs per month rent was more plausible for a commercial property of such value. Thus, the provisions of the Rent Act were deemed inapplicable.

The Direction for Deposit under Order XV-A of the CPC:
The Court explained that Order XV-A of the CPC, applicable in Delhi, allows for the deposit of an amount higher than the admitted rent, to ensure that the landlord is not deprived of rent or mesne profits during the pendency of the suit. The Court upheld the learned Single Judge's direction for the appellant/defendant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh per month, emphasizing that this provision aims to prevent abuse of the judicial process and to protect the rights of the landlord.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant/defendant was granted additional time to comply with the deposit order. The Court also directed that the deposited amount should not be released to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff until the final adjudication of the suit. The judgment underscores the Court's discretion under Order XV-A of the CPC to direct deposits that reflect the probable market rent, even if disputed by the tenant, to ensure fairness during the litigation process.

---