Landlord cannot refuse to take possession of premises from tenant citing damage to property: Delhi Court

The Patiala House Court in Delhi recently observed that a landlord cannot refuse to take back possession of leased property from the tenant on the ground that the premises were damaged. [Ameet Bhatia & Anr v Devyani International Ltd].District judge Vineeta Goyal relied on the Delhi High Court's verdict in HS Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India to observe that, "It is well-settled that the landlord cannot refuse to take over the possession of the suit property upon determination of lease on the ground that the property has been damaged or not restored to its original position.".The Court added that by not coming forward to take unconditional possession from the tenant, landlords cannot later sue for the recovery of rent for the period after the vacation of the property by the tenant..In the event of refusal of landlord to take possession offered by the tenant, the possession shall be deemed to have been delivered to the landlord, the Court reiterated. .The court made the observation in a suit filed for the recovery of ₹1,52,77,020 along with interest against Devyani International Ltd. (tenant) which runs food outlets such as Pizza Hut, KFC, etc. in India.The landlord-plaintiffs, in the present case, had asserted that the tenant had failed to make timely rental payments and that they had occupied the leased property without paying rent.On the other hand, the tenant contended that it had given a termination notice to the landlord and had vacated the premises in a timely manner after giving three months' notice. In this regard, the tenant also told the court that it had offered to give the keys to the vacated premises to the landlord. The landlord had, however, refused to accept the keys and take back possession citing pending rental dues and damage to the premises, the tenant contended. .The landlords countered by arguing that the property was damaged and that some goods were lying in the basement. They also staked a claim for recovering arrears of rent. However, after reviewing excerpts from a WhatsApp conversation between the parties, which was recorded as evidence, the court found that landlords presented no evidence to support this claim..Rather, upon finding merit in the tenant's submissions, the Court concluded,"On careful consideration of rival contentions of the parties and applying the well settled principles of law and following the dictum given in H.S Bedi case (supra) , it is established on record that defendant’s lease determined in the month of October, 2020 when the defendant offered the possession to the landlord-plaintiff who deliberately chose not to take the possession, therefore, the possession of the suit property is deemed to have been delivered to the landlord-plaintiff who is not entitled to the rent thereafter.".The Court, however, provided part relief to the landlords and found that they were entitled to rent payments for the period between April 2020 to October 2020 (that is, when the tenant was still occupying the premises), after adjusting a security deposit paid earlier by the tenant. "The plaintiffs by not coming forward to take unconditional possession from the defendant cannot make it actionable for recovery of rent for the period after vacation of the suit property by the defendant," the Court added. .Senior advocates Pawanjit S Bindra and advocate Vinayak Marwah represented plaintiffs.Advocates Bharat Chugh, Mayank Arora, Aditya Narayan Choudhary, and Ashray Chopra represented the defendant-tenant..[Read Order]