RFA 283/2022-DEL HC- Delhi HC expresses anguish over manner in which lawyer continued to illegally occupy suit premises despite being aware that tenancy stood terminated, says retainership agreement will not confer right to continue occupying property after termination of tenancy Justice Rekha Palli [20-07-2022]

Read Order: SANJEEV SEHGAL v. RAJENDRA KUMAR B MOHATTA & ORS 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 23, 2022: In a case where a lawyer admitted that he was neither the owner nor a tenant of the suit property, the Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs 2 lakh upon him as he was trying to prolong his illegal possession of the property without paying or even offering to pay any rent or mesne profits to the owner/landlord of the property.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Rekha Palli dismissed the present appeal which was instituted to assail the judgment passed by the Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The Bench was of the view that once the tenancy of the second respondent/company stood terminated, the appellant had no right to occupy the subject premises.

The common case of the parties was that the subject property was given on lease to the second respondent/ company through a registered lease deed dated October 16, 2018 on a monthly rent of Rs.2, 25,000 exclusive of water, electricity and maintenance charges.It was the appellant’s case that in 2020, the appellant and the second respondent/company entered into a retainership agreement whereunder the appellant was appointed as a legal consultant of the second respondent/company and was entrusted with the task to conduct all legal proceedings of the said company. 

However, since no retainership amount was being paid to him by the second respondent company, an arrangement was entered into between them whereby the appellant was permitted to occupy the subject property, the rent whereof was to be paid by second respondent. The second respondent failed to pay the rent as per the terms of the retainership agreement. Consequently, the first respondent/plaintiff terminated the tenancy agreement through its notice dated July 29, 2020.  Even after the notice was sent, the suit property was not vacated. 

In view of the same, the first respondent preferred the aforesaid suit against the second respondent/ appellant seeking possession of the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession in favor of the first respondent.  Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the instant appeal. 

After extensively  considering the submissions of the parties, the Court noted that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for impleadment of Mr. Satish Rajaram Pol, who was the director of the company, through which he came into the possession of the suit property.The Court further noted that the only plea of the appellant was that he was engaged as a retainer by the second respondent/company and in lieu thereof, he was granted permission to occupy the subject premises of which the second respondent/company was a tenant.

The Bench noted that once the tenancy of the second respondent/company stood terminated, the appellant had no right to occupy the subject premises and being a member of the bar, he should have been well aware that he had no right to continue to occupy the premises and that too when no rent whatsoever was being paid to the landlord/the first respondent, the Court noted. 

The mere fact that the appellant had entered into a retainer ship agreement with the second respondent/company would not confer any right either on the appellant or in fact even on the tenant/the second respondent to continue occupying the suit property after the tenancy had been terminated, the Court further remarked. In light of the aforesaid observations, the appeal was accordingly dismissed.