RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 1 of 20

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 30

th

April, 2026

Pronounced on: 31

st

July, 2026

+ RSA 134/2017 , CM APPL. 17781/2017 (stay)

RSA 135/2017, CM APPL. 17784/2017 (stay)

1. M/S SHAKUN & COMPANY

(Services) Private Ltd.

112-113, Gagan Deep Building

12, Rajendra Place,

New Delhi 110008 .....Appellant No.1

2. PRADEEP MEHRA

Director

M/s Shakun & Company

(Services) Private Ltd.

F-109, Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi. ....Appellant No.2

Through: Appearance not given

versus

SH. ASHOK DUGGAL

S/o Sh. R.N. Duggal

R/o B-742, Ansal Designer Villa,

Sushant Lok-1,

Gurgaon .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi and

Ms. Prashansa Srivastava, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 2 of 20

1. The aforesaid two Regular Second Appeals bearing RSA No.

134/2017 and RSA No. 135/2017, are decided together as they emanate

from the common Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.2017 wherein the

learned District Judge in the First Appeal, has upheld the Judgment of the

learned Civil Judge dated 09.10.2013 and 10.10.2013 respectively

decreeing the Suit of the Plaintiff, for Recovery of Rent and Damages.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Mr. Ashok Duggal had filed two Civil Suits

bearing No. 506/2012 (originally Suit No. 13/2001) for Recovery of

Possession of Basement of House No. B-2, Gagandeep Building, Rajendra

Place, New Delhi, and Suit No. 508/12/01 (originally Suit No. 9/2001) for

Recovery of Possession of Flat bearing No. 610, 6th Floor, Gagandeep

Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Suit

Properties') and for Recovery of Damages and Arrears of Rent.

3. The Plaintiff, Sh. Ashok Duggal had stated in his Suits for Recovery

of Possession that Basement bearing No. B-2, Gagandeep Building,

Rajendra Place, New Delhi, admeasuring 580 square feet and the said Flat

bearing No. 610, 6th Floor, admeasuring 370 square feet, were jointly

owned by him i.e. Sh. Ashok Duggal and Sh. Pradeep Mehra, his brother-in-

law, in equal share. Sh. Pradeep Mehra was a Director in the Defendant

Company.

4. The Plaintiff and his brother-in-law, Sh. Pradeep Mehra (Defendant

No. 2) leased out the Basement and the Flat shown in red in the Site Plan, to

the Defendant No. 1/M/s Shakun & Co. (Services) P. Ltd., w.e.f.

01.01.1985 on a rent of Rs.10,400/- per month and Rs.9,400/- per month,

respectively. The Plaintiff and his brother-in-law, Sh. Pradeep Mehra were

entitled to 50% of the rent i.e. Rs.5,200/- per month each for the Basement

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 3 of 20

and Rs.4,700/- per month each, for the Flat. The Defendant Company

continued to be a tenant in the suit premises and was in the arrears of rent @

Rs.5,200/- towards the Plaintiff for the Basement and @Rs.4,700/- for the

Flat, for the period 01.04.1999 to 31.12.2000, totalling to Rs.1,09,200/- for

the Basement and Rs.98,700/- for the Flat, and the interest @18% p.a., was

payable on the arrears of rent.

5. The Plaintiff further explained that though the tenancy had been

created for month to month, but the rent was being paid annually, as per the

mutual understanding. The Plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the

Defendants vide Legal Notice dated 26.05.2000 and asked the Defendants,

to vacate the Suit premises on or before 30.06.2000.

6. The Plaintiff, Sh. Ashok Duggal further explained that there were

disputes in the family between the Plaintiff and other Directors of the

Defendant No. 1 Company, including the winding up Petition, which is

pending in this Court. The Plaintiff further submitted that despite service of

Notice dated 26.05.2000, the Defendants had failed to vacate the Suit

Premises. The Plaintiff is entitled to the Mesne Profits/Damages @65/- per

square feet from 01.07.2000 i.e. Rs.15,000/- per month for his 50% share of

the Basement and Rs.12,000/- per month for his 50% share of the Flat.

7. Hence, the Plaintiff, Sh. Ashok Duggal filed the Suits for Recovery of

Possession, Arrears of Rent of Rs.1,09,200/- for the Basement and

Rs.98,700/- for the Flat and also for Damages w.e.f. 01.07.2000.

8. The Defendant No. 1/ M/s Shakun & Co. (Services) P. Ltd., filed the

Written Statement in both the Suits wherein it took the preliminary

objections that the Plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the

Defendants and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 4 of 20

was explained that in the year 1975-1976, Sh. Pradeep Mehra, one of the

main promoters of the Defendant Company, started the business of printing,

re-printing, publication, distribution and circulation of books, notifications,

circulars, press notes and policy notes etc., under his sole Proprietorship

firm "Shakun & Company".

9. Subsequently, in order to organise and formalize the business, Sh.

Pradeep Mehra along with his sister, Mrs. Alka Duggal (since deceased)

wife of the Plaintiff, got the Private Limited Company incorporated under

the name and style of "Shakun and Company (Services) Private Limited" i.e

the Defendant No. 1. Since its incorporation in 1980, the Defendant

Company has been carrying on the business under its name over last 20

years. The Defendant Company has achieved enviable goodwill and success

in its business because of the high value-oriented service.

10. On 16.02.1983, Mrs. Alka Duggal resigned from the Directorship of

the Defendant No. 1 Company. Subsequently, on the same day and on

01.09.1992, the Plaintiff and his daughter respectively, were inducted as

Non-Shareholding Directors, in the Defendant No. 1 Company.

11. Initially, after induction of the Plaintiff, the business went on

smoothly, but after the demise of Mrs. Alka Duggal on 30.04.1999, the

Plaintiff started behaving abnormally and in a manner detrimental to the

interest of the Defendant Company. He, for the reasons best known to him,

started inducing and luring the employees of the Defendant Company, to

rebel against the management. With the intervention of other family

members and relatives, the Plaintiff agreed not to indulge in such activities,

which were detrimental to the interest of the Defendant Company.

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 5 of 20

12. The Plaintiff being the Director of the Defendant Company, had

access to every trade related privileged information of the Defendant

Company. He covertly started misusing it for his personal interest and

benefit. All the data-base, list of clients/subscribers of the Defendant

Company, were being accessed and used for the personal gains by the

Plaintiff. The illegal and dishonest acts of the Plaintiff, which came to the

knowledge of the Defendants in the first week of February, 2000, when the

Defendants received one brochure of M/s Shakun Exim Corporation from

one of its subscribers, informing the Defendants of existence of a Firm

purported to be engaged in the same business as that of the Defendant. The

Brochure contained the name of the Plaintiff and his daughter, as its issuer.

13. The Plaintiff and his daughter, had launched the said Firm with the

same business objectives, while continuing as a Director of the Defendant

No. 1 Company. Moreover, some of the employees of the Defendants, also

suddenly stopped reporting for duty as they were lured and snatched by the

Firm of the Plaintiff.

14. The Defendants also discovered that the Accounts, which were being

handled by the Plaintiff, at the time of renewal of subscription in the month

of December, 1999, had only requested for renewal of subscription from the

subscribers of the Defendants, for three months; and in the month of

February, 2000, he requested for renewal of subscription for financial year

2000-2001 under the name of his Firm. The Defendants immediately

circulated a Caution Notice to all the subscribers, making them aware of the

confusion being created by the Firm of the Plaintiff.

15. The Defendants also served a Legal Notice dated 11.02.2000 and

29.02.2000, amongst others to the Plaintiff, calling upon him to refrain from

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 6 of 20

doing any business same or similar to that of the Defendants, under the

name and style of "Shakun" for whose usage, the Defendants had an

absolute prior right.

16. Despite such Notices, Plaintiff did not refrain himself from such

activities. The Defendants thus, filed Suit No. 749/2000 for Permanent

Injunction for restraining the Plaintiff from Passing Off and Rendition of

Accounts of Profits etc. in this Court, which is pending adjudication.

17. Furthermore, in view of the anti-Company activities of the Plaintiff,

an Extra-ordinary General Meeting of the Defendants, was held on

10.04.2000 and the Resolution for removal of the Plaintiff and his

daughter as Directors of the Defendants, was carried out unanimously.

Accordingly, Form No.32 for removal of the Plaintiff and his daughter, was

duly filed with Registrar of Companies, on 11.04.2000.

18. It was claimed that the Plaintiff and his daughter, not only took away

three cars and cell phone of the Company that had been given to them for

personal use, but also failed to return the various articles of the Company

including the three cars and the mobile phone of total value Rs.4,06,837.04,

which were in their possession.

19. The Defendants admitted that the suit properties were owned by the

Plaintiff and Sh. Pradeep Mehra, Defendant No.2 and had been given on

perpetual lease to the Defendant Company in January, 1985. It was further

admitted that at present, the monthly rent was Rs.10,400/- for the Basement

and Rs.9,400/- for the Flat. It was also admitted that as per the Agreement,

the rental was to be divided equally between the Plaintiff and Sh. Pradeep

Mehra.

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 7 of 20

20. The Defendants submitted that since induction of the Plaintiff as

Director of the Defendant Company, the 50% of monthly rent was credited

equally in the Account of Sh. Pradeep Mehra and the Plaintiff respectively,

maintained by the Defendants Company, and the amount so credited in their

Account, was being withdrawn by them respectively. It was stated that the

same practice of payment of rent was being followed by the Defendant No.

1 Company.

21. The Defendants claimed that in view of illegal and unauthorised

possession of the articles and non-refund of the money despite repeated

requests, the share of the Plaintiff towards the rental of the suit premises,

was not being disbursed to him and was being adjusted towards the value of

the articles. After debiting the book value of the articles in his account, the

Defendants credited the Plaintiff's share of the rent till March, 31, 2001.

However, the Plaintiff still owes and is liable to pay Rs.67,424.26 to the

Defendant Company.

22. The Defendant No.1 further claimed that it has a right to raise its

counter-claim for recovery of the articles or the value thereof. The

Defendants submitted that pursuant to the satisfaction of the aforesaid

outstanding amount, the Defendant shall recommence paying the rent to the

Plaintiff.

23. The Defendants further asserted that the Suit is bad for non-joinder of

Sh. Pradeep Mehra, who is admittedly the co-owner of the suit property. It is

further submitted that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any individual or

unilateral action in regard to the lease, without the consent of Sh. Pradeep

Mehra. Without determination of the rights of the Plaintiff and Sh. Pradeep

Mehra in the suit property, the Suit for Possession is not maintainable.

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 8 of 20

24. It was further asserted that the Suit was pre-mature and not

maintainable. Even otherwise, the Basement is a single room with single

entrance and the Flat is a single room along with attached toilet with single

entrance and both are incapable of being vacated partially or more

particularly, 50% of the area.

25. Furthermore, an Application under Section 443 of the Companies Act,

1956 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, has been filed by the Plaintiff

claiming arrears of rent aside from various other reliefs, which is pending

adjudication. In view of the said litigation, the present Suit should be stayed

under Section 10 as the subject matter of this Suit and the Company Suit, are

the same.

26. On merits, a similar defence was taken by the Defendants and it was

submitted that the Suit was liable to be dismissed.

27. Defendant No.2 Pradeep Mehra was impleaded on 01.12.2006, in

view of the objection taken by Defendant No. 1 in the Written Statement

regarding non-joinder of a necessary party, namely Shri Pradeep Mehra,

who was admittedly a co-owner of the suit property.

28. Counter-Claim bearing No. 09/2001 was filed by the Defendant

Company wherein the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff, who was the

Ex-Director of the Defendant Company, had indulged in various illegal acts

against the Company including passing of his business under the name and

style of M/s Shakun Exim Corporation for which Suit No. 749/2000, had

already been filed. It was claimed that on account of the illegal and

unauthorised activities of the Plaintiff and retention of the Property of the

Company, the prayer was made that the Mandatory Injunction be granted

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 9 of 20

against the Plaintiff, Sh. Ashok Duggal for directing him to return the

assets, properties of the Defendants.

29. The same Counter-Claim bearing No. 09/2001 was filed by the

Defendant in both the Suits, which was dismissed vide Order dated

17.01.2005. This Court gave one opportunity to the Defendant but it failed

to take steps and the Order dated 17.01.2005, was affirmed by this Court.

30. Vide Order dated 20.03.2004, the learned Civil Judge allowed the

Application under Order 39 Rules 10 CPC filed by the Plaintiff in the

Basement Suit and directed the Defendants, to pay rent/occupation charges

@Rs.5,200/- per month from 01.01.2001 to 29.02.2004, and to continue to

pay the rent on the monthly basis.

31. From the pleadings, the Issues were framed vide Order dated

17.08.2001, which were finally amended and framed on 20.08.2009 in the

Basement Suit as under:-

i. Whether the defendant has vacated the suit premises as

alleged by the defendant on 30.06.2004 and handed over the

possession to plaintiff? OPD

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of

rent/damages in light of issue No. 1? OPP

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the arrears of the rent of

Rs.1,09,200/- along with interest with respect to the suit

property for the period 01.04.1999 to 31.12.2000 from the

defendant? If so, then at what rate? OPP

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for use and

occupation of the suit property w.e.f. 01.07.2000 from the

defendant? OPP

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 10 of 20

v. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in view of the

preliminary objections taken in the written statement?

vi. Relief.

32. In the Flat Suit, similar Issues were framed on 20.08.2009, the only

difference being that the arrears of rent claimed were Rs.98,700/- @

Rs.4,700/- per month for the same period i.e. 01.04.1999 to 31.12.2000.

33. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by

way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. He relied upon the Property Agreement in

respect of the Suit Property as Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR), the Site Plan as Ex. PW-

1/2, the Legal Notice dated 26.05.2000 terminating the tenancy as Ex. PW-

1/3 and the A.D. Card evidencing its service as Ex. PW-1/4. PW-1 was

extensively cross-examined on 07.04.2011 and 13.05.2011, whereafter the

Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on 13.05.2011

34. The Defendants examined Shri Pradeep Mehra, Managing Director of

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2, as DW-1, who tendered his evidence

by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. He relied upon the certified extract of the

Board Resolution dated 22.04.2000 as Ex. DW-1/1; the brochure of M/s

Shakun Exim Corporation as Ex. DW-1/2; the legal notices dated

11.02.2000 and 29.02.2000 as Ex. DW-1/3 and Ex. DW-1/4 respectively;

the notice dated 12.06.2004 along with the UPC receipt as Ex. DW-1/5

(Colly.); the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the High Court as Ex. DW-

1/6; the order dated 06.12.2005 passed by the High Court as Ex. DW-1/7;

the order dated 13.04.2006 passed by the Supreme Court as Ex. DW-1/8; the

order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the High Court as Ex. DW-1/9; the letter

dated 30.07.2004 addressed to the Estate Manager as Ex. DW-1/10; the

certificate dated 20.09.2011 issued by the Estate Manager as Ex. DW-1/11;

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 11 of 20

and the Credit Circulation issued by BSES Rajdhani as Ex. DW-1/12. DW-1

was duly cross-examined.

35. The learned Civil Judge vide Judgment dated 09.10.2013 in the

Basement Suit and 10.10.2013 in the Flat Suit, on appreciation of evidence

concluded that the possession of the suit premises was not received by the

Plaintiff, which continued to be in possession of the Defendants. It was held

that the Plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit premises. It was

further held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the arrears of rent as

monthly damages amounting to Rs.1,09,200/- for the Basement (from

01.04.1999 to 31.12.2000) and Rs.98,700/- for the Flat (from 01.04.1999

to 31.12.2000) and the same was granted along with the interest @10%

p.a.

36. The Suit of the Plaintiff was thus decreed for Possession, Arrears of

Rent of Rs.1,09,200/- for the Basement and Rs.98,700/- for the Flat along

with simple interest @10% p.a. for the period from 01.04.1999 to

31.12.2000 and the damages @ Rs.5,200/- per month for the Basement and

@ Rs.4,700/- per month for the Flat along with the interest @10% p.a., from

01.01.2001 till the delivery of the possession, vide Judgment dated

09.10.2013 and 10.10.2013 respectively.

37. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Defendant Company, as well as,

Sh. Pradeep Mehra, had preferred First Regular Appeal bearing RCA No.

60761/2016.

38. The learned District Judge reappreciated the evidence and concluded

that the learned Civil Judge had rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly

decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff, Sh. Ashok Duggal. No merit was found in

the Appeal, which was dismissed.

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 12 of 20

39. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the First Regular Appeal, the present

Second Appeals have been preferred by the Defendants/Appellants.

40. The Appellants stated that the following substantial questions of law,

arise in the present Second Appeals, which are as under:-

i. Whether the Suit for Mesne Profits and an enquiry under Order XX

Rule 12 CPC is maintainable when no relief of possession is sought

by the Plaintiff?

ii. Whether the surrender of the possession to one co-owner can be

deemed to be a valid surrender?

41. The grounds of challenge are that the two Courts were not justified in

holding that vacation of tenanted premises, can be done only through

delivery of key and lock to the Respondent/landlord. It was not being

appreciated that admittedly, there was no written Lease Agreement between

the Appellant Company and the Respondent, mentioning how the vacation

of the suit premises, was to be effected. Therefore, it was not mandatory for

the tenant to deliver the possession by way of hand over the lock and key.

The vacation and consequent handing over of the tenanted premises, can be

deemed while effecting a notice of vacation thereof on the part of the tenant,

which aspect has been overlooked by the two Courts.

42. Moreover, the Appellant No. 1 vide its Notice dated 12.06.2004, had

intimated that it is vacating the tenanted premises on 30.06.2004 and

handed over the lock and key of the premises to the Respondent and the

Appellant No. 2, Sh. Pradeep Mehra, both being the co-owners of the suit

premises. The Respondent, however, did not turn up to take possession or

the lock and key thereof, and thus, the possession was handed over to Sh.

Pradeep Mehra, the co-owner.

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 13 of 20

43. The Appellate Court erroneously arrived at a conclusion that handing

over of the Possession to the Defendant No. 2 being a co-owner, remained in

the realm of oral assertions and overlooked that there was no basis to

differentiate in this regard as the Defendant No. 2 was the co-owner of the

suit property.

44. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court noted that even if it

was accepted as gospel truth that the possession was handed over to one co-

owner of the suit property, who happens to be the Director of the tenant

Company, then merely because of the uncordial terms between the parties,

it cannot be said that the possession handed over to Sh. Pradeep Mehra, shall

not be deemed to be a surrender of possession to both the co-owners. The

Company is an independent and a distinct legal entity.

45. The testimony of DW-1 on behalf of the Defendant Company, that

they have already vacated the premises and handed over the possession to

the Defendant No. 2, has not been appreciated in the correct perspective as

the Appellant Company was fully justified to hand over the possession to

one co-owner.

46. Furthermore, in lieu of the specific stand of Appellant No. 1 Company

that they have already vacated the Suit premises, an additional issue was

framed in this regard, which further fortifies the categorical admission by

the Respondent in his cross-examination.

47. The Plaintiff has placed reliance on P.C. Agarwala vs. Payment of

Wages Inspector, M.P., (2005) 8 SCC 104; Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd.

vs. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P., (1999) 4 SCC 458; Heavy Engg.

Mazdoor Union vs. State of Bihar, (1969) 1 SCC 765; Tata Engineering and

Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40 and Bacha F.

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 14 of 20

Guzdar vs. CIT, (1955) 1 SCR 876; Mukesh Hans vs. Uma Bhasin, 2010

SCC Online Del 2776; V.K.Uppal vs. M/s Akshay International Pvt. Ltd.,

2010 SCC Online Del 538; Sangeeta Jewels vs. Ajay Kumar Jain, 2008 SCC

Online Del 181, Steel Authority of India vs. Century Tubes, 2005 SCC

Online Del 164 and Rama Association (P) Ltd. vs. Delhi Development

Authority, 1991 SCC Online Del 467.

48. It is further submitted that the two Courts have completely ignored the

fact that the suit property was an unpartitioned property owned by the

Plaintiff, as well as, the Defendant No. 2, Sh. Pradeep Mehra and because

the Respondent failed to come forth to take the possession, it was validly

handed over to Sh. Pradeep Mehra.

49. The Company being an independent legal entity, could not have been

held obligated to hand over the possession to the Plaintiff, for which reliance

is placed on N. Padmamma vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2015) 1 SCC 417;

Jai Singh vs. Gurmej Singh, (2009) 15 SCC 747; Md. Mohammad All vs.

Jagadish Kalita, (2004) 1 SCC 271; Vidya Devi vs. Prem Prakash, (1995) 4

SCC 496 and Raj Rani vs. Kailash Chand, (1977) 3 SCC 468 and Ram

Gopal Bhagwan Das vs. Parmeshri Das, AIR 1924 Lah 474.

50. It is further contended that once Notice for vacating the tenanted

premises was served, it was the responsibility of the landlord/owner to take

possession of the tenanted premises when it was vacated by the tenant.

Despite due service of Notice dated 12.06.2004 to the Respondent and the

Appellant, who are the co-owners of the Property, the suit premises were

vacated and possession handed over to the Appellant No. 2.

51. Furthermore, the Appellant Company in order to corroborate the

vacating of the premises on 30.06.2004, had obtained the Certificate from

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 15 of 20

Estate Manager of Gagan Deep Flat Owners Association on 20.09.2011. He

also applied and received credit circulation for meter installed in the suit

premises. An Application for bringing these documents on record, was filed

but the same was dismissed vide Order dated 22.02.2012.

52. The Company thereafter, was left with no option but to vacate the

premises on 30.06.2004, for which it moved an Application seeking

permission to summon Business Manager, BSES Rajdhani or any with the

records relating to the Letter dated 02.08.2004 along with the Receipt dated

03.08.2004 for Suit. It was, therefore, wrongly observed by the Court that

there was a delay of 8 years in summoning the records, which became

relevant only after 27.08.2008. The Application for examination of these

officials of BSES, has been wrongly dismissed, by the learned Trial Court. It

is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment is liable to be set-aside.

53. Written Submissions were filed by the Appellant essentially claiming

the same grounds, as have been stated in the Appeal.

54. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the Respondents.

Submissions heard and record perused.

55. The Substantial Question of Law framed on 02.04.2026, are as

under:

(i) Whether the Suit for Mesne Profits and an

enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC is

maintainable when no relief of possession is

sought by the Plaintiff?

(ii) Whether the surrender of the possession to one

co-owner can be deemed to be a valid

surrender?

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 16 of 20

56. It is an admitted case of the parties that Ashok Duggal and his

brother-in-law Pradeep Mehra (brother of the wife of Ashok Duggal) were

the joint owners of the suit property, which had been let out to M/s Shakun

& Company, the Defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.10,400/- per month for

the Basement and Rs.9,400/- per month, for the Flat. It was an

arrangement between Ashok Duggal and Pradeep Mehra that they would

share the rent equally and the amount of Rs.5,200/- for the Basement and

Rs.4,700/- for the Flat for being credited in the account of the two owners

every month.

57. Another significant aspect is that Ashok Duggal and Pradeep Mehra

the owners of the property, also were the Directors of M/s Shakun and

Company, to whom the property had been let out.

58. It has been proved that the Company held an extraordinary General

Meeting on 10.04.2000 and by a Board Resolution, Ashok Duggal and his

daughter were removed from the post of Directors of the Company. This

was also corroborated by Form 32 that was submitted with the Registrar of

Companies on 11.04.2000. Thus, since 11.04.2000 Ashok Duggal was not a

Director of M/s Shakun & Company.

59. However, this aspect is insignificant as this case does not pertain to

the inter-se disputes between the Directors of a Company, but is a

simpliciter dispute between the owners and the tenant, wherein there is no

confusion and whether Ashok Duggal continued to be a Director or not, the

fact remained that Shakun & Company which is a legal entity, was a tenant

of Ashok Duggal and Pradeep Mehra.

60. The only aspect which has been challenged is that according to the

tenant Company, they had issued the Notice dated 12.06.2004 to Ashok

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 17 of 20

Duggal as well as to Pradeep Mehra, both being the co-owners of the Suit

property, informing them that they are vacating the property on 30.06.2004

and the lock and key of the premises shall be handed over to them.

However, according to the Appellant, Ashok Duggal did not turn up for

taking the possession and thus, it was handed over to Pradeep Mehra. Since

the Company has validly vacated the suit premises on 30.06.2004, it is no

longer liable in any manner in regard to the handing over of the Possession

to Ashok Duggal.

61. The question which arises is whether the handing over of the

Possession to Pradeep Mehra one of the co-owners, is sufficient to

conclude that the Company had validly vacated the premises on

30.06.2004.

62. Ashok Duggal had denied being served with the Notice dated

12.06.2004. The onus was on the tenant Company to prove that the Notice

was duly served upon Ashok Duggal. The tenant Company had claimed that

the Notice was served through UPC receipt Ex.DW1/5. The learned District

Judge in the impugned Judgment considered in detail whether the Notice

was duly served. It was noted that there was firstly, no explanation as to

why the Notice was not sent through the registered post, but only through

UPC.

63. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Rashid B.

Mulani (2006) 1 SCC 407 has observed that a Certificate of posting

obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a

communication by a registered post. When a letter is sent by registered post,

a receipt with serial number is issued and a record is maintained by the post

office. However, when merely a certificate of posting is sought, no record is

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 18 of 20

maintained in the post office either about the receipt of the letter or the

certificate issued. In the absence of such a record, a certificate of posting is

very little assistance, where the dispatch of such communication is disputed

or denied.

64. Therefore, though the Defendant had claimed to have served two

Notices, but in the light of they being disputed by the Plaintiff, mere service

by UPC, had not been deemed to be valid service on the Plaintiff, Ashok

Duggal, to accept the vacant possession of the suit premises. The two

Courts have rightly held that there was no situation for the Plaintiff to have

gone to the suit premises on 30.06.2004 to accept the possession of the suit

property.

65. The second question which arises is whether handing over of the

possession to Pradeep Mehra, the co-owner, can be considered as valid

surrender of the tenanted premises.

66. The first most conspicuous fact which stares at the face of the record

is that Pradeep Mehra was the Director of M/s Shakun & Company, the

tenant. The second fact which is glaringly evident from the record, is Ashok

Duggal and Pradeep Mehra had developed differences in running the

Company. Thirdly, it is the case of the Defendants themselves that Mr.

Ashok Duggal who was also a Director of the Company, was removed vide

Resolution dated 10.04.2000.

67. In such a situation it is evident that the alleged handing over of the

possession to Pradeep Mehra was essentially as a Director of Defendant

Company. Pradeep Mehra admitted in his deposition that the premises are

lying locked and the keys of the premises are in his possession. It is difficult

to accept that there was a valid surrender of the tenancy to Pradeep Mehra

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 19 of 20

68. There was nothing which prevented Pradeep Mehra from handing

over the joint key of the premises or to do any such act which would have

manifested that the tenancy was surrendered to both the co-owners and that

both were having an access to the tenanted premises. While it may not be

necessary for the tenant to hand over the Suit property to both the co-

owners, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be

said that there was any valid delivery of the tenanted premises to Pradeep

Mehra, who also happened to be the Director of M/s Shakun & Company

which was the tenant. Rather, it is evident that the alleged surrender of

possession of tenanted premises was stage managed by ostensibly giving the

keys to Pradeep Mehra, the Director of the tenant Company and then to

claim a valid surrender.

69. The learned District Judge rightly observed that even during the

pendency of the proceedings, despite the specific plea of Plaintiff that he

was still ready to take the possession of the tenanted premises and despite

framing of an Issue in this respect, no efforts were made on behalf of the

Defendants to hand over the possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.

70. Though the Defendant No.1 had claimed that they had served due

Notice, but it has already been observed that there was no valid service of

the Notice of handing over of the possession. Moreover, the Defendant

Company handed over the keys to itself through its Director Pradeep Mehra.

Considering the acrimony and that the Plaintiff having ceased to be the

Director as his Directorship having been terminated vide the Resolution of

the Company dated 10.04.2000, it cannot be said that there was any valid

surrender of the property to the Plaintiff.

RSA 134/2017 & RSA 135/2017 Page 20 of 20

71. Learned ADJ has further rightly noted that while the Defendant

Company claimed that they had handed over the possession to Defendant

No.2 Pradeep Mehra being the co-owner, but there was no basis or

document from where the status of Defendant No.2 as a co-owner or a

Director of the Company could be differentiated.

72. Considering the non-cordial terms between the parties, the surrender

of possession by the tenant to one co-owner who also happened to be the

Director of the Company, has rightly not been held to be a valid surrender

of tenancy and the Defendant Company has been rightly held to be in un-

authorized occupation of the suit premises, for which the Plaintiff was

entitled to user and occupation charges.

73. The learned ADJ has rightly upheld the Judgment of the learned Civil

Judge dated 09.10.2013 and 10.10.2013 decreeing the suit for possession

and directing the Defendant Company to give arrears of rent of

Rs.1,09,200/- for the Basement and Rs.98,700/- for the Flat along with

Simple Interest @ 10% per annum to the Plaintiff Ashok Duggal for the

period from 01.04.1999 to 31.12.2000. Also, the Damages @ Rs.5,200/- per

month for the Basement and Rs.4,700/- per month for the Flat along with

interest @ 10% per annum from 01.01.2001 till the delivery of possession

has also been rightly granted.

74. The Suit has been rightly decreed in favour of the Plaintiff.

75. There is no merit in the present Appeals, which are hereby dismissed.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

JULY 31, 2026

RS/VA