Case: Mukesh Seth &amp; Another Vs. M/s. A.B. Lal and Sons &amp; Others

On 02.01.2017, this Court passed the followingafter 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 petitionershall 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 and payment of outstanding dues shall be without prejudice to all contentions open to them.Thus, as far as eviction is concerned, that process is completed and the property has been surrendered vacant possession.On 03.05.2016, this Court had passed the followingDevashish Bharukha, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 points out that petitioner No.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.He further points out that there is no information available with the Government maintainedregarding registered particulars of the company orID nor does the data maintained by the Governmentindicate 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 whatsoever and hence incapable of either conducting any business or paying rent due and payable to thefurther submits that petitioner No. 1 is not a Director ofcompany and that the petitioners have indulged in gross misrepresentation of facts by showing MukeshNo. 1 as Director of petitioner No.p.m. only.Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits thatMukesh Seth is not a Director of petitioner No.and that anyto that effect made in theof 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.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 theis 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.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, aand 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 petitioner No.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) Auditedfor 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.to petitioner No. 1 over the past five years and the mode of such payment.5)return of the petitioner No.for past five years.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.

Court's reasoning:
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.