TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent issued the cheque for a sum of ₹ 14,885/-, which was returned with the endorsement funds insufficient , but there is no record to show that the petitioner had initiated any criminal prosecution against the second respondent under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Further, the issuance of the cheque itself goes to show that the second respondent admitted the liability and also the receipt of rent from the first respondent. Though the rent for the months of August 2010 and July 2011 were not paid the petitioner kept quiet for sometime, without taking any action and only issued the notice to the first respondent on 25.12.2011, a copy of which is not produced before this Court conveniently by the petitioner. Even thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent to pay arrears of rent. 2. There was a lease deed between the petitioner and the second respondent dated 30.11.2005 registered as document number 4974 of 2005 for a period of 29 years. On the strength of the same, the second respondent entered into an agreement of lease with the first respondent on 28.12.2005 (mentioned as 24.12.2005 in some pages and 26.12.2005 in some other pages), registered as document No.254 of 2006 for the same period, i.e., 29 years commencing from 01.11.2005, on certain terms, including the monthly rental with periodical enhancement till 31.10.2034. The second respondent failed to pay the rent for certain period, that is, August 2010, July 2011 and from 01.04.2012 to 30.09.2013. Thereafter, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period from 01.10.2013 to 31.05.2014. The first respondent also advised the petitioner to take up the issue of arrears of rent with the second respondent for the earlier period, as it had no outstanding to the second respondent. The first respondent Corporation also sent a suitable reply on 04.11.2005 to the representation of the petitioner dated 20.12.2015 and hence, the petitioner could have no grievance against the first respondent and thus, the first respondent sought for dismissal of this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the head lessor ; the second respondent is the lessee ; and the first respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to state that clause III 6 of the agreement dated 30.11.2005, which was entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent, was suitably incorporated as clause 3(h) in the lease agreement dated 28.12.2005 entered by the first respondent with the second respondent, on the strength of the former lease deed and the said Clause reads as follows : As per Clause III-Point 6 in Page 10 in the lease deed doc No.4974 of 2005 dated 30/11/2005 (hereinafter called Head Lease) between Mr.T.M.Ramalingam (the head lessor) and Ms.S.Sathya (the lessee(, the said lessee covenanted that the lease hold rights of sub-lessee, M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited shall not be taken away in case of any failure to comply with any terms an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
