TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Apartment No.301, The Aralias, DLF, Phase-V, Gurgaon, admeasuring 6833 sq.ft. for rent under a lease agreement dated 29th August, 2011. The agreed rent was Rs.3,25,000/- per month exclusive of maintenance charges payable to M/s DLF Home Services Pvt. Ltd. and electricity charges. The maintenance charges were to be paid by the respondent-company directly to the maintenance agency. 3. The premises were occupied from 1st September, 2011 and prior inspection thereof had been taken by the respondent-company on 29th August, 2011. 4. The respondent-company paid the monthly rent for seven months but thereafter did not pay. During the period from September, 2011 to October, 2012, the respondent company paid an amount of Rs.27,29,500/- as ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0th July, 2013. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to paragraph 9 of the counter where it was stated that the company was not doing any business and the expenses were being met with the personal funds of the Directors. The submission was that this itself shows that the company is commercially insolvent. In paragraph 12 of the counter, to which also my attention was drawn, it was stated that the total rent paid by the respondent was Rs.27,29,500/- which is at the rate of Rs.3,25,000/- per month. It was submitted that the respondent at no point of time disputed the fact that the rent payable by it was Rs.3,25,000/- per month. It is further contended that the averment in paragraph 6 of the petition that the agreed r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Sanjiv Khanna, J) in Manju Bagai vs. Magpie Retail Ltd. 175 (2010) DLT 212. 10. In his reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment. He also submitted that the non-denial in the reply to the legal notice regarding the amount of rent payable for the premises amounted to an admission by the respondent which cannot be retracted. 11. On a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that there is no merit in the defence sought to be raised by the respondent-company. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the lease deed, being an unregistered document, cannot be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the monthly rent, since t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,000/- per month. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the premises were not properly maintained despite several intimations given to the landlord and it is inconceivable, and would also be unjust, that the respondent should be asked to pay for such premises the full rent of Rs.3,25,000/-. I am of the view that this is merely a counter blast to the claim made by the petitioner. Annexure-2 of the counter is an e-mail sent by the petitioner. On 15th August, 2012, the respondent wrote to the petitioners that the latter have been talking only about the payments due to them without caring for the facilities which the respondent has to get. In this e-mail it was specifically stated that the respondent had agreed to pay mo....