TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive of the maintenance charges directly payable to the maintenance agency and the electricity and water charges. Amount of Rent - There was no denial about the amount of the rent - There is no denial in the counter, denying the averment of the petition that the rent in respect of the premises was fixed by the parties at Rs.3,25,000/- per month - Considering these facts, it was clear that even if the lease deed was not to be looked into, it had otherwise been proved that the rent for the premises was Rs.3,25,000/- per month. The petitioners have not been negligent in attending to the requests of the respondent-company - In any case that was not a justification for not paying the agreed rent in time - These were not substantial issues o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Easwar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr P. V. Dinesh and Mr Jaimon Andrews, Advocates ORDER R. V. Easwar, J. Co.Appl.2442/2012 (for exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CO.PET. 588/2012 Co.Appls.2441/2012 This is a petition filed under Section 433(e) and 433(f) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondent-company. 2. The respondent-company had taken the premises being Apartment No.301, The Aralias, DLF, Phase-V, Gurgaon, admeasuring 6833 sq.ft. for rent under a lease agreement dated 29th August, 2011. The agreed rent was Rs.3,25,000/- per month exclusive of maintenance charges payable to M/s DLF Home Services Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the premises had not been handed over to the petitioner; accordingly a direction was issued, which was accepted by the respondent, that the possession will be handed over to the petitioner on 6th March, 2013 on 11 A.M. This direction was complied with. This Court also noticed that Mr.Vineet Yadav, Director of the respondent-company was defying the orders of this Court repeatedly. Accordingly on 9th May, 2013 he was directed to be present in Court. The matter was directed to be relisted on 30th July, 2013. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to paragraph 9 of the counter where it was stated that the company was not doing any business and the expenses were being met with the personal funds of the Directors. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent-company regarding the poor maintenance of the premises, it would be unfair to force the petitioner to pay a rent of Rs.3,25,000/- per month. It is submitted that in any case these are matters of evidence to be proved in proper proceedings and the winding up proceedings are not the answer. 9. In support of its contention that the unregistered lease deed cannot be looked into for the purposes of ascertaining the rent payable by the respondent-company, my attention was drawn to a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Sanjiv Khanna, J) in Manju Bagai vs. Magpie Retail Ltd. 175 (2010) DLT 212. 10. In his reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment. He also submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y it was Rs.27,29,500/- which conforms to the claim of the petitioner that the rent payable in respect of the premises was Rs.3,25,000/- per month. There is no denial in the counter, denying the averment in paragraph 6 of the petition that the rent in respect of the premises was fixed by the parties at Rs.3,25,000/- per month. Considering these facts, it is clear that even if the lease deed is not to be looked into, it has otherwise been proved that the rent for the premises was Rs.3,25,000/- per month. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the premises were not properly maintained despite several intimations given to the landlord and it is inconceivable, and would also be unjust, that the respondent should be asked to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any case that is not a justification for not paying the agreed rent in time. These are not substantial issues or defences which can successfully be put forth in answer to the present petition for winding up on the ground that the respondent-company is neglecting to pay the rental amounts. It may also be noted that the respondent, despite all the protests about the repairs and maintenance not being properly carried out, vacated the property only in March, 2013 and that too only under orders of this Court. 13. The judgment (supra) upon which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with the question of the liability to pay liquidated damages in the form of rent for the unexpired portion of the lease period of thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
