Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd v. Vikramjit Singh Puri & Anr

order, the right of the respondent/defendant no.2 to resist the suit for possession filed by the petitioner / plaintiff on the ground of her rights under the DV Act has disappeared.

¶29The counsel for the respondent / defendant no.2 has made two submissions. Firstly, it is stated that the amounts fixed of Rs.1,70,000/- per month for residence is too meager, considering the entire house in occupation of the respondent / defendant no.2 at Friends Colony (West), New Delhi. Secondly, it is contended that the respondent / defendant no.2 would like to cross-examine the witness of the petitioner / plaintiff on issue no.2 framed in the suit. Reliance is also placed on Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur MANU/DE/2132/2014 and Ram Saroop Gupta Vs. Major S.P. Marwah MANU/DE/2506/2012.

¶30I have enquired from the counsel for the respondent / defendant no.2 that if the amount fixed by the Court under the DV Act for residence is meagre as contended, whether not the remedy therefor is under that Act only and on what basis can the same be agitated in this proceeding. It is informed that an appeal has been preferred by the respondent / defendant no.2 as well as the respondent / defendant no.1 before the Sessions Court and which is pending consideration for long. The counsel for the respondent / defendant no.2 however controverts

that the respondent / defendant no.1 has preferred any appeal against the order dated 21st September, 2015 supra under the DV Act.

¶31In my opinion, the first of the aforesaid submissions cannot be a ground to allow the respondent / defendant no.2 to contest the suit from which this petition arises. As far as the second plea is concerned, once the right asserting which the respondent / defendant no.2 was contesting the suit is found to have been addressed by the order under the DV Act, the trial in the suit is not to be ordered merely to allow the respondent / defendant no.2 to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner / plaintiff to prove the issue no.2 inasmuch as even if the said issue was to be decided in favour of the respondent / defendant no.2, the finding thereon would not lead to the suit of the petitioner / plaintiff being dismissed inasmuch as the rights claiming which the respondent / defendant no.2 is defending the suit have been adjudicated under the DV Act and the grievance if any with respect thereto can only be in appeals / remedies thereagainst and not under this suit.

¶32As far as the judgments aforesaid relied upon by the counsel for the respondent / defendant no.2 are concerned, in Ram Saroop Gupta supra, in the context of the ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, it was held i) that though a company is a distinct legal entity separate from its shareholders, however the principle of piercing the veil of the corporate personality in order to reveal the true identity of the company is a recognized doctrine; ii) that the principle behind the doctrine is a changing concept and it is

expanding its horizon; iii) that the principle of piercing the veil of corporate personality should be utilized not to prevent somebody from doing any wrong but merely in order to recognize the reality of the situation. In Navneet Arora supra, a Division Bench of this Court held that S.R. Batra supra is only an authority for the proposition that a wife is precluded under the law from claiming right of residence in a premises owned by relatives of husband, wherein she has lived with her husband separately, but not as a member of the joint family along with the relatives of the husband who own the premises; however in the later eventuality if a couple live as members of joint family in a domestic relationship with the relatives of the husband in a premises owned by such relatives of the husband, statutory prescription would indeed enable the wife to claim right of residence since it would fall within the realm of shared household as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Act irrespective of whether she or her husband has any right, title or interest in the shared household.

¶33I am afraid, the judgments aforesaid have no relevance to the present factual controversy where in the DV Act proceedings, while fixing the entitlement of the respondent / defendant no.2 to maintenance, the component of residence has been included. The respondent / defendant no.2 cannot at the same time resist her eviction in accordance with law contending a right to residence.

¶34I am therefore of the view that no purpose will be served by putting the suit from which this petition arises to trial and the

petitioner / plaintiff is entitled to a decree for ejectment of both the respondents / defendants from the premises forthwith.

¶35Considering the entirety of the facts, need to keep the suit alive for adjudication of the claim of the petitioner / plaintiff for recovery of mesne profits / damages for use and occupation is also not felt if the respondent / defendant / defendant no.2 abides by the decree for possession.

¶36Thus the impugned order dated 27th August, 2015 is set aside.

¶37The application of the petitioner / plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, for the reasons aforesaid, is allowed.

¶38Resultantly, a decree is passed in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff and against the respondents / defendants, of ejectment, by recovery of possession of the property No.12A/3, Friends Colony

(West), New Delhi.

¶39In exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Sh. A.K. Kuhar, Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi, before whom the Appeal No.75/2015 (New Appeal No.204397/2016) titled "Ekta Puri Vs. Vikramjeet Puri & Ors." of the respondent / defendant no.2 against the order dated 21st September, 2015 under the DV Act is pending, is requested to decide the said appeal on or before 31st December, 2017.

¶40The decree for ejectment is made executable only after 31st January, 2018.

¶41If the respondent / defendant no.2 abides by the decree, the claim of the petitioner / plaintiff for mesne profits / damages for use and occupation and for costs would also stand satisfied and the suit shall be disposed of. However if the respondent / defendant no.2 contests the matter further, the petitioner / plaintiff shall be entitled to continue the suit for the remaining reliefs claimed therein.

¶42Decree sheet be drawn up. No costs. Trial Court record be sent back.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 "gsr" (corrected & released on 17th October, 2017)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 14th September, 2017 + C.R.P. 190/2015 VIREET INVESTMENTS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.N. Koura, Ms. A. Payal & Mr. Abihnav Tandon, Advs. Versus VIKRAMJIT SINGH PURI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Mr. Anirudh K. Mudgal & Ms. Malvika, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order [dated 27th August, 2015 in Civil Suit No.55/2014 of the Court of Additional District Judge-02 (ADJ), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi] of dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for a decree for possession on admissions in a suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff against the two respondents / defendants for ejectment of the respondents / defendants from property No.12A/3, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi and for recovery of mesne profits / damages for use and occupation. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued. The counsels for the two respondents have been appearing. 3. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent no.2 Ms. Ekta Puri (wife of respondent no.1) were heard yesterday and have been further heard today. The occasion for hearing the counsel for the respondent no.1 who supports the petitioner / plaintiff has not arisen. 4. The petitioner / plaintiff instituted the suit from which this petition arises, pleading i) that the petitioner / plaintiff had let out the property aforesaid to the respondent / defendant no.1 by a lease deed 1st June, 2013 for a period of 11 months at a rent of Rs.35,000/- per month; ii) that the period of lease expired on 30th April, 2014 and no fresh lease deed had been executed; iii) that the petitioner / plaintiff called upon the respondent / defendant no.1 to vacate the premises but the respondent / defendant no.1 had not done so. 5. The respondent / defendant no.1 filed a written statement pleading that the respondent /defendant no.2 was his wife and though the respondents / defendants were residing in the property but their relationship had deteriorated and the respondent / defendant no.1 had vacated the property in October, 2013 and it was the respondent / defendant no.2 only who was continuing to reside in the property. 6. The respondent / defendant no.2 also filed a separate written statement pleading, i) that the respondent / defendant no.1 was and even then a Director of the petitioner / plaintiff and which fact had been suppressed; ii) that the petitioner / plaintiff is a company controlled entirely by the respondent / defendant no.1 and his family members; iii) that the issue of residence of the respondent / defendant no.2 in the subject property was sub judice before two separate forums and the subject suit was an offshoot of the matrimonial litigation between the respondents / defendants; iv) that a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) filed by the respondent / defendant no.2 against the respondent / defendant no.1 and her in-laws was pending adjudication before the Metropolitan Magistrate; v) that there was already an injunction in favour of the respondent / defendant no.2 and against the respondent / defendant no.1 qua the property; vi) that the subject property is a "shared household" of the respondents / defendants within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the DV Act; vii) that the title of the petitioner / plaintiff over the property is denied for want of knowledge; viii) that the petitioner / plaintiff is controlled completely by the respondent / defendant no.1 who is a shareholder / Director therein; ix) that even if the respondent / defendant no.1 has now recused himself from Directorship of the petitioner / plaintiff, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respond