NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  10040/2010

MUKESH SETH & ANR.   APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

M/S. A.B. LAL AND SONS & ORS.            RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 91/2017 IN C.A. NO. 10040/2010

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel, has handed over a demand draft for Rs.36,370/- on behalf of Ms. Heena  Munshaw  today.   The  demand  draft  has  been acknowledged by the counsel for the landlord, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari.  Learned counsel appearing for the landlord  submits  that  the  electricity  and  water charges  actually  come  to  around  Rs.45,000/-  as  on 25.09.2017. 2. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  company  may directly give the amount payable towards electricity and water charges to Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, who is the  counsel  for  Ms.  Heena  Munshaw  and  on  such

1

communication,  the  said  payment  will  also  be  duly satisfied. 3. The parties are before this Court with certain disputes regarding the eviction.  On 02.01.2017, this Court passed the following order:-

“Post after four weeks. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel

has today on instructions handed over the keys  of  the  disputed  premises  to  Mr. Devashish  Bharukha,  learned  counsel  for respondents No.1 and 2.  The respondents can  occupy  the  premises  and  enjoy  the peaceful possession without any hindrance from the petitioner.  That statement is recorded and the keys handed over to Mr. Bharukha.

List  the  appeal  along  with  the application  for  discharge  after  six weeks.

Mr. Giri at this stage submits that petitioner No.2-Company shall within six weeks  from  today  also  clear  all outstanding  water  and  electricity  dues payable in respect of the premises and furnish  receipts  of  the  same  to  Mr. Bharukha.  The delivery of the possession

2

and payment of outstanding dues shall be without prejudice to all contentions open to them.”

4. Thus,  as  far  as  eviction  is  concerned,  that process  is  completed  and  the  property  has  been surrendered vacant possession.  What remains now is the  dispute  regarding  mesne  profits/use  and occupation charges for the period of occupation. 5. On  03.05.2016,  this  Court  had  passed  the following order:-

“Mr.  Devashish  Bharukha,  learned counsel  for  respondents  No.  1  and  2 points out that petitioner No. 2-Company, is  according  to  Company  Master  Data maintained by the Government of India, an unlisted  dormant  company  with  no  PAN number,  no  authorised  signatories  and with  a  paid  up  capital  of  hardly  Rs. 20,000/-.  He  further  points  out  that there  is  no  information  available  with the  Government  maintained  web-site regarding  registered  particulars  of  the company or e-mail ID nor does the data maintained  by  the  Government  web-site indicate  the  date  of  the  last  Annual General  Meeting  of  the  company.  This according to Mr. Bharukha clearly shows that  the  company  is  a  non  existent fake/shell  company,  doing  no  business

3

whatsoever and hence incapable of either conducting  any  business  or  paying  rent due  and  payable  to  the respondent-landlord.   

He  further  submits  that  petitioner No. 1 is not a Director of petitioner-2 company  and  that  the  petitioners  have indulged  in  gross  misrepresentation  of facts  by  showing  Mukesh  Seth-petitioner No.  1  as  Director  of  petitioner  No. 2-Company.   He  submits  that  the vakalanama filed on behalf of petitioner also does not disclose the authority on the basis of which petitioner No. 1 has claimed  himself  to  be  an  authorised signatory of petitioner No. 2. He states that  the  market  rental  value  of  the premises  in  question  is  in  the neighbourhood  of  Rs.  3,00,000/-  p.m. whereas petitioner No. 1 is enjoying the possession of the property for many years by paying a paltry sum of Rs. 670/- p.m. only.   

Mr.  Dhruv  Mehta,  learned  senior counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners submits that petitioner-1 Mukesh Seth is not  a  Director  of  petitioner  No. 2-company and that any mis-representation to that effect made in the cause-title of the  SLP  is  wholly  unsupportable.   He concedes that the vakalatnama also does not indicate the authority on the basis of which petitioner No. 1 has signed on behalf of petitioner No. 2.   

4

Mrs.  Heena  Mansha  who  appears  in person  on  behalf  of  petitioner  No.  2 submits that she is one of the Directors of  the  company,  her  son  Kunal  Mansha being  the  only  other  Director.  She submits  that  the  petitioner-company  is doing  business  of  sale  of  textile machinery  imported  from  outside  the country. She submits that her arrangement with  petitioner  No.  1  is  that  of  a commission agent in which petitioner No.1 sells  the  machinery  imported  by petitioner  No.  2-company  on  payment  of commission by the company.  

We  have  given  our  anxious consideration to the submissions made at the  Bar.  We  do  not  for  the  present propose to express any final opinion on the  merits  of  the  contentions  urged  on either side. All that we need say is that the premises in question comprises nearly 1800 sq. feet of covered area comprising three bed rooms, a drawing-cum-dining and an office room.  The premises is situated in  commercially  important  Gole  Market area in the  capital. The rental value of the  premises  has  doubtless  increased considerably over the years. The amount being  paid  is  in  that  view  totally incommensurate with the market rent. The contractual  rent  it  is  pertinent  to mention was fixed as early as in the year 1963 with no enhancement ever since. We are, therefore, inclined to direct that

5

petitioner No. 2-Company who claims to be the  real  tenant  of  the  premises  shall deposit  in  this  Court  compensation  for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs. 1,00,000/-  p.m.  w.e.f.  01.05.2010.  The deposit shall be made within six weeks.   

Post again on 02.08.2016.  We  make  it  clear  that  the  deposit

made is only provisional and subject to alternations and that the parties shall, if so advised, be free to file requisite documents to show market rental value of the  property.  The  petitioner  company shall  in  addition  file  the  following documents and information on affidavit: 1)   Audited  balance-sheet  for  the  past five years. 2) The date of Annual General Meetings of the  company  held  during  the  past  five years and the minutes of such meetings. 3) Extent of Business turnover from the Northern  region  being  looked  after  by petitioner No. 1. 4)  The  amount  of  commission  paid  by petitioner  No.  2-company  to  petitioner No. 1 over the past five years and the mode of such payment. 5)  Income-Tax  return  of  the  petitioner No. 2-company for past five years.”  

6. Ms.  Heena  Munshaw  has  thereafter  filed  an application for modification of the above order dated 03.05.2016.  So far, no response has been filed.

6

7. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the premises has been surrendered vacant possession, we are of the view that the surviving disputes are to be settled by an appropriate forum and not by this Court.   8. Therefore,  we  relegate  the  parties  to  the appropriate  forum  with  liberty  to  pursue  their surviving  grievances  regarding  fixation  of  mesne profits/use and occupation charges etc. 9. Since  we  have  relegated  the  parties  to  the appropriate forum to pursue their grievances, we are not  inclined  to  embark  upon  an  inquiry  on  I.A. No.16436/2016, which is, accordingly, disposed of. 10. The appeal is disposed of, as above. 11. Since, the appeal has been disposed of, no orders are  required  to  be  passed  on  the  application  for discharge of advocate. 12. We make it clear that all contentions available to the parties are left open.  13. In case any Forum is approached by any party, having  regard  to  the  long  pending  disputes,  steps shall  be  taken  to  dispose  of  the  matter expeditiously. 14. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 15. There shall be no orders as to costs.

7

16. In view of the order passed in the civil appeal, contempt petition is also dismissed.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 16, 2017.

8