This case involves a lease agreement dispute between Deepak Gupta and M/s Baba Banjo over a residential property. The key details are:
1. The parties signed a lease agreement in April 2019 for 11 months, which was verbally agreed to be renewed annually for 5 years.
2. The lease was renewed in August 2022 with increased monthly rent of Rs. 85,000.
3. Gupta filed a petition seeking eviction of Banjo, but Banjo argues the petition is not maintainable as Gupta owns multiple properties and did not provide the required notice for termination under the agreement terms.
4. Banjo also claims to have invested heavily in renovations based on
This case involves a lease agreement dispute between Deepak Gupta and M/s Baba Banjo over a residential property. The key details are:
1. The parties signed a lease agreement in April 2019 for 11 months, which was verbally agreed to be renewed annually for 5 years.
2. The lease was renewed in August 2022 with increased monthly rent of Rs. 85,000.
3. Gupta filed a petition seeking eviction of Banjo, but Banjo argues the petition is not maintainable as Gupta owns multiple properties and did not provide the required notice for termination under the agreement terms.
4. Banjo also claims to have invested heavily in renovations based on
This case involves a lease agreement dispute between Deepak Gupta and M/s Baba Banjo over a residential property. The key details are:
1. The parties signed a lease agreement in April 2019 for 11 months, which was verbally agreed to be renewed annually for 5 years.
2. The lease was renewed in August 2022 with increased monthly rent of Rs. 85,000.
3. Gupta filed a petition seeking eviction of Banjo, but Banjo argues the petition is not maintainable as Gupta owns multiple properties and did not provide the required notice for termination under the agreement terms.
4. Banjo also claims to have invested heavily in renovations based on
This case involves a lease agreement dispute between Deepak Gupta and M/s Baba Banjo over a residential property. The key details are:
1. The parties signed a lease agreement in April 2019 for 11 months, which was verbally agreed to be renewed annually for 5 years.
2. The lease was renewed in August 2022 with increased monthly rent of Rs. 85,000.
3. Gupta filed a petition seeking eviction of Banjo, but Banjo argues the petition is not maintainable as Gupta owns multiple properties and did not provide the required notice for termination under the agreement terms.
4. Banjo also claims to have invested heavily in renovations based on
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5
IN THE COURT OF SH.
TARUN KUMAR VERMA, LD, CJ, GURUGRAM
COURT, NEW DELHI
Case No. RP/137/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
DEEPAK GUPTA …Petitioner
Vs.
M/s BABA BANJO …Respondent
BRIEF NOTE
S.NO DATED PARTICULAR
1. 18.02.2022 Petition under Section 13 Haryana Urban (Control
of Rent and eviction) Act, 1973 filed by the Petitioner
He is owner of I-902 Ambience Lagoon
Apartments, NH-8, Gurugram (Haryana) Petitioner is suffering from 3rd stage Rectal Cancer Lease deed 66234414 dated 30 july 2020 executed on 02.08.2020 for the period of 01.03.2020 to 31.01.2021 for consideration of rent ₹ 85000 per month Petitioner committed default in payment of rent, electricity etc and said default got effective from lease ended 28-02-2020. Clause 32 Arbitration Clause invoked where Ld. Arbitrator awarded dated 30.06.2021 a claim of ₹ 14,71,596 in favor of petitioner with future interest @18% per annum from date of award along with electricity, maintenance, gas, and other consumptions . Three cheques were issued by the respondent bearing no. -049794 dated 22.05.2021 of rs 50,000 049795 dated 22.06.2021 of rs 50,000 both drawn on ICICI bank sec 54 rejected saying Funds Insufficient. Complaint filed under section 138 NI Act is pending before Hon’ble court of Sh Vivek Singh JMFC. Rent agreement dated 02.08.2020 stands expired on 31.01.2020 and has not been renewed.
2. 11.04.2022 Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC r/w 151
cpc filed by respondent to set aside ex-parte order against respondent.
3. Reply to application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
r/w 151 cpc by petitioner.
4. 4.05.2022 Petition under Section 13 Haryana Urban (Control
of Rent and eviction) Act, 1973 for assessment of rent
Respondent proceeded ex-parte vide order
dated 11.04.2022 on account of failure to appear and non-filing of reply to main petition in spite of several opportunities. Court fixed date of hearing of ex-parte as on 4.05.2022 The applicant being retired senior citizen suffering from advanced stage of cancer, is only source of income as rent from the suit property. Grand total due = ₹ 3837139
5. 17.05.2022 Reply to petition under section 13 Haryana Urban
(control of Rent and eviction) Act 1973 for assessment of rent by respondent
application is not maintainable and liable to
be dismissed. That on 30.06.2021 an award was already pass by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. Sunder Singh (Advocate) wherein the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has erroneously allowed the claims of the petitioner and against the respondent herein. Respondent and Petitioner has entered into a lease agreement dated 04.04.2019 wherein the Respondent has taken a residential apartment bearing No. I-92, Ambience Lagoon Apartments, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002 on lease for a period of 11 months lease, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) was paid by the Respondent at the time of execution of lease deed as security and monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 75,000/- to be paid in advance by the 7th day of every month and also with a condition of 10% increase in rent every 11 months Before taking the residential flat it was agreed verbally between the parties that the said flat was taken for a period of 5 years and the same would be renewed every year accordingly and on the assurance of the respondent entire flat was renovated at the cost of the Respondent by investing personal funds That after the expire of the above said period the said lease was again renewed on 2.08.2022 with the same terms and conditions with increased monthly of Rs 85,000/- per month to be paid advance by 7 th day of every month clearly mentioned that under clause 28 (f) of the said lease deed in case of any breach of the said lease deed the petitioner had to issue a breach and cure and termination notice to the respondent giving 21 days written notice but instead of serving any notice the petitioner and being lured by offers of higher rent qua he expressed his non-willingness to continue with the lease deed to the respondent in August 2020, the Petitioner showed his inability to continue with his lease quoting that he was getting a higher rent qua which the Respondent objected and requested not to breach the terms of the lease deed and promises prompting huge investment in the property no bonafide requirement of the petitioner in respect of the said property as he already in occupancy of a residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause as per Section 13 sub clause 3 (i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and therefore he cannot demand eviction of the respondent as he is already in possession of 2-3 properties and therefore this petition is not maintainable huge sum of money in renovating the said premises and have made all the necessary repairs after the assurance of repayment by the petitioner but no amount has been paid by the petitioner in this respect clause 32 of the lease deed to invoked arbitration in case of dispute which has already been invoked by the petitioner. according to Section 23 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules,1976 read with Rule 7 it is expressly mentioned in the said act that the principles of the Civil Procedure court will be applicable and therefore the said petition is barred under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11, Order 2 Rule 2, Section 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code
6. 17.05.2022 Application under Order 7 rule 11, order 2 rule 2,
r/w section 11 and section 151 CPC filed by respondent
7. 17.05.2022 Application under Section 5 and Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 filed by the respondent.
8. 17.05.2022 Order passed by court where reply has to be filed
by the petitioner and two applications for early hearing has been filed by the petitioner.
Our Submissions:
Lease deed signed b/w parties dated 04.04.2019 wherein the
Respondent has taken a residential apartment bearing No. I-92, Ambience Lagoon Apartments, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002 on lease for a period of 11 months Before taking the residential flat it was agreed verbally between the parties that the said flat was taken for a period of 5 years and the same would be renewed every year lease was again renewed on 2.08.2022 with the same terms and conditions with increased monthly of Rs 85,000/- per month under clause 28 (f) of the said lease deed in case of any breach of the said lease deed the petitioner had to issue a breach and cure and termination notice to the respondent giving 21 days written notice and no notice served. no bonafide requirement of the petitioner in respect of the said property as he already in occupancy of a residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause as per Section 13 sub clause 3 (i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and therefore he cannot demand eviction of the respondent as he is already in possession of 2- 3 properties and therefore this petition is not maintainable huge sum of money in renovating the said premises and have made all the necessary repairs after the assurance of repayment by the petitioner clause 32 of the lease deed to invoked arbitration in case of dispute which has already been invoked by the petitioner and award passed in his favour. according to Section 23 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules,1976 read with Rule 7 it is expressly mentioned in the said act that the principles of the Civil Procedure court will be applicable and therefore the said petition is barred under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11, Order 2 Rule 2, Section 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code The suit is therefore not maintainable as one civil remedy has already been availed. All dispute arising out of the lease deed will be hit by clause 32 where the said matter has to be referred to the arbitrator and this remedy was already availed by the petitioner. In case of Lovely Obsessions Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Gurgaon 2012 the Hon’ble High court of Punjab and Haryana has held: 8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause, contained in the lease deed, reveals that every dispute arising out of or in connection with the lease deed has to be referred to arbitration. The arbitration clause is worded very widely and covers the dispute raised by the plaintiff-petitioner in the suit. Application under Section 8 of the Act has, therefore, been rightly allowed by the trial court. The arbitration clause has not become defunct or inoperative merely because the lease period under the lease deed has expired.