TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses plaintiff's application under CPC, highlights need for trial to resolve landlord-tenant issues</h1> <h3>M/s. Arrena Overseas Private Limited Versus M/s. Batra Art Press</h3> M/s. Arrena Overseas Private Limited Versus M/s. Batra Art Press - TMI Issues Involved:1. Existence of landlord and tenant relationship.2. Validity and genuineness of the Lease Agreement.3. Ownership and control of the plaintiff company.4. Impact of family settlements and share transfers.5. Applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for judgment on admissions.Detailed Analysis:1. Existence of Landlord and Tenant Relationship:The plaintiff claimed the defendant was a tenant under a Lease Agreement dated 1st April 2007, which was terminated, leading to the present suit for possession and arrears of rent. The defendant contested this, denying any landlord-tenant relationship and alleging the Lease Agreement was a sham document created for obtaining loans from banks.2. Validity and Genuineness of the Lease Agreement:The defendant argued the Lease Agreement was never acted upon and was superseded by a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 20th December 2007, which stated the lease was only for securing financial loans. The court noted that no rent was paid by the defendant firm since the execution of the Lease Agreement and that the plaintiff had not demanded rent for eight years, suggesting the lease was not genuine.3. Ownership and Control of the Plaintiff Company:The plaintiff company was initially owned by two grandsons of late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra. Disputes arose, leading to the dilution of one grandson's shares. The defendant argued that the plaintiff company was a family-owned quasi-partnership, and the real owner of the suit property was late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra. Proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding the transfer of shares and directorship were highlighted, indicating ongoing disputes about the company's control.4. Impact of Family Settlements and Share Transfers:The defendant highlighted family settlements and share transfers, including a family settlement dated 14th April 2003, which stated that late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra was the absolute owner of the suit property. The court noted that the outcome of NCLT proceedings concerning the transfer of shares would significantly impact the present case.5. Applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for Judgment on Admissions:The court emphasized that for a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and unconditional. Given the disputed facts and the need for a trial to determine the genuineness of the Lease Agreement and the relationship between the parties, the court found no clear admissions to justify a judgment on admissions.Conclusion:The court dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, stating that the issues raised required a trial for resolution. The court emphasized that the observations made were only for deciding the present application and would not affect the final adjudication of the suit. The case was listed for further consideration of pending applications on 16th February 2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
