Suits of Eviction, Very Genius Argument by srn Advocate

Added: 2026-05-20

[00:00:00]petition is filed.

[00:00:01]Let the suit is for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Mhm.

[00:00:06]And the lease deed came to be executed in 2016. Mhm. Later on in 2017, I assigned it in favor of >> Which is the document not allowed? Yes, kindly see the application. Which?

[00:00:21]Serial number seven mantra there 97 page 97.

[00:00:32]>> [clears throat] >> Settlement. Building kata extract kata certificate or C fire safety.

[00:00:38]Is it a baker?

[00:00:40]Hello, really? Mhm. BBMP approved plan or Mhm. occupancy certificate or Mhm.

[00:00:45]kata certificate in the fire safety.

[00:00:48]Because the lease deed says that if statutory clearances are there, then only >> Who is the owner of the property? Owner of the property is the plaintiff.

[00:00:57]Mhm. He has filed a suit seeking for eviction and as well as recovery of arrears of rent.

[00:01:03]You are the defendant. Yes, I'm for the first defendant.

[00:01:07]Now in this suit in the evidence at page 85 Mhm. He says that I have the documents, I'll produce it. Kindly see page 85.

[00:01:19]All these documents?

[00:01:22]He says approved sanction plan, commencement and completion certificate will be produced.

[00:01:31]Page 85. I'm there. About 10 lines from the >> suggested necessary the approved sanction plan, commencement and completion certificate issued by the shall be produced by the court. I will produce money after Lots. You never open the door. Lots. If necessary, my lords. But now it is necessary. It is not so, my lords. My humble submission, this my lords the suit is for it's a commercial suit, my lords, for eviction and arrears of rent, my lords. Correct. The respondent, the first defendant, my lords, this this suit The respondent, the first defendant my lords, this this suit has expired the term has expired as of 2021 itself my lords. Mhm.

[00:02:08]So my lords, now, in the guise of the cross examination, firstly my lords, the respondent has not filed his written statement my lords. It has been forfeited. In the guise of the cross examination my lords, these questions my lords, regarding the title to the property my And my lords, these documents >> certificate of the BBMP and completion certificate given by BBMP has to But these at this stage my lords, when When did you accept that you are going to give My lords, I if necessary, my lords, it is stated It is authorized in you if necessary and all the necessity will be brought up. There is no necessity my lords. That is my That you can't say after saying if necessary. My My submission is this my lords.

[00:02:45]For the purpose of deciding the issue, the purpose of the suit itself my lords, these documents are not necessary. Now, who Who is the tenant? That is the defendant number two my lords. Defendant number one and two is my submission my lords because What the lease was firstly executed in favor of the defendant number one.

[00:03:01]Subsequently my lords, one year after Occupancy certificate in law.

[00:03:07]My lords, I don't have occupancy certificate with me my Then how did you lease it out?

[00:03:11]My lords, I have leased it out my lords.

[00:03:13]Whatever documents whether I have produced it I I have handed it over to the defendant number one at the time of the lease deed.

[00:03:18]He has accepted it and then my lords, he's taken on lease. And then after one year my lords, he assigns it to the second defendant.

[00:03:24]They are still in possession of the apartment >> is the first defendant?

[00:03:27]He is the first lessee my lords.

[00:03:29]Where?

[00:03:31]He's not here. You are the second defendant, is it? Second, I am the first defendant. Oh, you are the lessee.

[00:03:36]>> took the property on lease.

[00:03:38]Subsequently, I was given it to second defendant. But the lease deed says that if clearances statutory clearances are not there, then I am not liable to pay the rent.

[00:03:47]In fact my lords, the lease deed also says my lords, that the the lease stands automatically terminated my lords. My kindly see page number >> a matter there, sir. you have said you will give it. I have if necessary I have stated that these documents >> No necessity No necessity is told by the senior counsel. The necessity for the adjudication of the suit it is not for the submission. Because my lords it is a matter simplicity for eviction my lords.

[00:04:09]The defendant number one Eviction recovery of money.

[00:04:13]Yes my lords. The defendant number one first of all my lords asks specific questions regarding the liability to pay rent and in in yours that the lease having been assigned in favor of the second defendant there is no liability on the part of the first defendant to pay the rent my lords.

[00:04:29]So I in one breath my lords he says that the lease stand assigned and then my lords ask questions about the sanction plan.

[00:04:39]Why did you ask? It was asked I the witness has answered my lords.

[00:04:43]The necessity for deciding the suit in question my lords does not arise at all because the defendant who doesn't even have a defense he's only stating this my lords.

[00:04:52]In the same breath he's asking Correct. In one breath he asks that in another breath he is asking that.

[00:04:59]>> Please my lords. Why you did not hold your breath there?

[00:05:02]My lords I have my lords. In fact if the cross-examination fails my lords Yes my lords.

[00:05:09]He had also stated that he has to verify and submit.

[00:05:13]That's what I am telling. Please please please. Now my lords the necessity for My lords I have There is no document we leave it. In fact my lords I have >> All other documents fire safety and all that better.

[00:05:27]I have I have filed May May I just produce my written submission my lords where I have categorically stated that these documents are not with me my lords in my possession. That I have stated my lords. Why did you say this sir?

[00:05:38]Written submission while deposing in cross-examination why did you say I have it if necessary I will produce it? My lords the reason is this, my lords.

[00:05:48]These documents the sanction plan >> You should never get caught in cross-examination. That's the whole problem. The the issue is this, my lords. The question is asked to me about these documents. I have produced I have given these documents to defendant at the time of the leasing, my lords.

[00:06:01]Otherwise, he has no cause for him to enter into the >> That is not your answer.

[00:06:04]Fair enough, my lords. The fact remains so that because if they are relying on the lease deed, my lords, if I may submit, if they are relying on the lease deed which is already expired, my lords, by the effects of time And my lords, there are also specific clauses stating that if there is no uh license given to operate the premises, then the lease is automatically terminated. So, my lords, essentially what the defendant is asking is for specific performance of a lease of a document that is already expired, my lords. Wherein that particular document is not even relevant to decide the suit. In fact, that is >> That's according to you. My lords, that is also, my lords, >> According to them >> I will just rely on the document >> Because the senior counsel just now said, "If there are no statutory clearances, he would not become liable to pay the amount that you are demanding." In my respectful submission, my lords, that is a matter that they ought to have taken in defense. They have not filed a written statement, my lords, beyond 120 days.

[00:06:55]Sir, written state written state Not filing of written statement does not preclude them from cross-examination.

[00:07:01]They have elicited something in cross-examination. The elicitation has caught you now. My lords, the relevance of it, in fact, that is the language of order 11, rule 14, my lords. No problem, sir. So, my lords, it is not that the party >> Cross-examination does not try to cross-examine does not go away and cross-examination what is elicited cannot be washed >> lords, I'm not I'm not No, in fact, the the language of order 11, rule 14, if it is seen Please, my lords.

[00:07:25]Production of documents. It shall be lawful for the court at any time during the pendency of any suit to order the production by any party thereto upon oath of such of the document in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in the suit as the court shall think right. And the court may deal with such documents. In fact, lords, the court has exercised its discretion. That is also seen from the the the impugned order of the court.

[00:07:49]Exercised discretion and permitted seven. Yes, ma'am. We will permit OC and CC now. No, ma'am. The The relevance also has to be looked at, ma'am, of these documents. Relevance is just now said.

[00:08:00]>> But it is not justified, ma'am. The relevance is I don't think that [clears throat] is before the court.

[00:08:03]We'll come The relevance to produce Mere production of a document will not be be all be all and end all of this suit. It will have to be tried. It will have to be tried.

[00:08:16]Illwa?

[00:08:17]It's not there, ma'am. I have stated that. I have stated that before the We will record it. Please. And whatever inferences can be drawn by the court will be drawn.

[00:08:24]>> That's all I'm stating, ma'am.

[00:08:26]I don't really want that, but it's there.

[00:08:28]So, rent you haven't got to pay anything.

[00:08:34]No, I have stated >> [laughter] >> written written arguments. I have stated I have PRODUCED IT ALSO, MA'AM.

[00:08:38]I will not I will record it. I don't really want that.

[00:08:41]So, I don't really want it. The consequence will follow. I will get the order.

[00:08:46]Well, yeah. Uh well, it is serial number one to six is what we have sought.

[00:08:59]Sanction Sanctioned sanctioned plan in India.

[00:09:02]Sanctioned plan in India. Eaglet in India. Well, it's not in my possession, ma'am. That is what I have stated.

[00:09:08]I don't have it, ma'am. I have I have also searched. I have whatever I have searched, ma'am. It is a It is a property that was constructed nearly 20 years ago, ma'am. It is not there.

[00:09:15]Okay.

[00:09:18]It is not That's all I'm I'm stating, ma'am.

[00:09:22]The sanctioned plan in India. Sanctioned plan OC and CC is not there, ma'am. Your lordship may record it. SP OC CC more in India.

[00:09:29]All inferences can be drawn by the court because of uh The court, in fact, ma'am, makes that analyzes that, ma'am, on the question of relevancy, ma'am. That is evident from the impugned order of the court.

[00:09:40]>> Analyzes that my lords on the question of relevancy, my lords. That is evident from the impugned order itself.

[00:09:45]Whether it is Relevancy Relevancy the learned senior counsel says that the statutory clearances like this are not available, his payment of rent becomes a doubt. Does that mean anyway the submission is that because the uh lease time was signed in favor of the defendant number two, he is not liable to pay rent. I'll put it both. It's both, my lords. One more submission, my lord. One more ground to my lords not to submit, although they do state in the petition that they're in possession, my lords.

[00:10:10]So, they have stated everything altogether.

[00:10:24]>> [snorts] >> We'll close Yes, Prasanna.

[00:10:34]The petitioner The first defendant is before this court calling in question an order dated 2nd June June the 2nd 2025 passed in commercial OS 418 of 2024 answering an application filed under order 11 rule order 14 rule sorry, order 11 rule 14 of the CPC seeking production of certain documents.

[00:11:00]The >> [snorts] >> The uh The suit is for recovery of money and delivery of vacant possession of the property.

[00:11:18]The petitioner is said to be the lessee from the hands of the respondent plaintiff.

[00:11:24]After the lease deed executed in favor of the present petitioner, transpires that the present petitioner defendant number one has executed a sublease with defendant number two. of the lessee or the respondent. An application is filed before the concerned court by the by the first defendant, the petitioner, seeking production of documents as described in the application. The documents that the petitioner sought to sought to produce from the petition from the respondent are as follows, page 97, madam.

[00:11:56]Mark portion. Let me make one submission, these documents but just to they were never asked it before only in the cross-examination this is The written statement actually I think cross-examination they can ask something. Before that also they have not asked in any communications >> A defendant can first project his defense in written statement. I mean it's through this. You written statement hacky lot time but I go with it. Only through this. Yes, madam.

[00:12:20]After Even before the written statement in any communication they have not asked for it. Before written statement all communications before this suit They've never yes, madam. They've never. There is default of rates for the last So, and so. The learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Harnal he submits that the concerned court has erred in allowing an application at serial number seven while declining all other six applications quoted supra. The learned senior counsel would further emphasize on the fact that the sanctioned plan occupancy certificate and any other?

[00:12:51]And the completion, sir. And complete completion and get it out of you.

[00:12:55]I think the completion in law other than the building quota act The occupancy The building quota extract the approved sanctioned plan and occupancy certificate were imperative to be produced to determine the liability of payment of rent at the hands of the petitioner to the respondent. As per the lease terms of the lease As in terms of the in terms of the lease deed appended to the petition entered into on 16th April 20 sorry, on the 2nd April 2016.

[00:13:27]The learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the learned senior counsel takes this court through the cross-examination of the respondent. The cross-examination reads as follows.

[00:13:40]The relevant portion of the cross-examination reads as follows, page 83 84.

[00:13:47]In the cross-examination, the respondent PW1 has admitted the fact that the completion certificate sanction plan and occupancy certificate are all available and would be given at the appropriate time if need arises.

[00:14:01]The learned counsel for the respondent now lays emphasis on the fact that those are not necessary documents.

[00:14:08]Case law is in Uh not necessary documents and would seek to place reliance upon certain reliance upon the judgments.

[00:14:18]Yeah, all citations.

[00:14:20]The certain judgments of which court?

[00:14:23]Bombay High Court Uh certain judgments of other High Courts to contend that documents that are necessary alone should be directed to be produced. The cross-examination of the petition of the PW1, the respondent, is as quoted herein above. If it is his case that those documents were available and those documents were necessary to determine the amount of rent that is payable, the the they become on the face of it necessary documents which are germane for consideration of the issue in the list before the concerned court. The learned counsel for the respondent now submits that he