DEVINDER GUPTA, J.
(1) IN this application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs has claimed an injunction restraining defendants from parting with possession or creating third party's interest or from making any structural change in the disputed property or any part thereof and further directing the defendant to continue paying a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 per month to the plaintiffs towards damages without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised by the plaintiffs during pendency of the suit.
(2) THE plaintiffs have alleged that they are joint owners of residential house No. C-1, 813, Asian Village Complex, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi which was let out to the defendant on 20. 12. 1991 for 11 months and on 25. 12. 1991 a formal agreement to let was signed between the plaintiffs and the defendants reducing the terms of lease in writing on a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 3,000. 00. The agreed rent payable by the defendant was Rs. 25,000. 00 excluding water and electricity charges payable in advance on or before 7th day of the month. On the day when possession was handed over to the defendant a cheque for Rs. 75,000. 00 was handed over to the plaintiffs towards two months' advance rent at the rate of Rs. 25,000. 00 and one month's rent to be kept as security which was to be paid back to the defendant on his vacation of the property. Defendant did not make any payment thereafter in time but sought extension by giving an excuse that due to paucity of funds and as a result of set back in the business he was unable to pay at that stage. He was expecting certain payments in his business. Since the defendant failed to pay rent after 20. 2. 1992 the plaintiff adjusted the security amount towards three months' rent upto 19. 3. 1992. By about September/october, 1992, the defendant started representing the plaintiffs that he would vacate the premises on the expiry of lease and would clear the oustandings. Defendant, however, failed to keep his word. He wanted further time to vacate since his two daughters were studying in Delhi Public School who were to have their final examinations in March/april, 1993 and thus assured the plaintiff that he would vacate the premises by May, 1993 and also clear his dues. On 5. 5. 1993, the defendant handed over another cheque of Rs. 75,000. 00. The cheque was got encashed and adjusted towards arrears of rent from 20. 3. 1992 to 19. 6. 1992. Receipt was issued. As regards vacation, defendant No. 1 represented to plaintiff No. 1 that he had negotiations with one N. R. I, for purchase of a house in Vasant Vihar but before deal could be finalised, the said N. R. I. died, therefore, transaction had been delayed. Thus, the defendant had been occupying the premises against the plaintiff's wishes arid had also failed to make the payment of arrears of rent. Despite letters and telegram, the defendant failed to clear the same. On 6. 4. 1994, notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent to the defendant. In response to the notice a letter dated 18. 4. 1994 was received from defendant's counsel claiming ignorance regarding lease agreement dated 25. 12. 1991 and requesting for a copy thereof. Though a copy had been supplied to the defendant, in order to avoid any controversy, on 4. 5. 1994 another photo stat copy of the lease agreement which is on a non judicial stamp of Rs. 3,000. 00 was sent. The defendant sent his reply dated 16. 5. 1994 through his advocate denying the contents of the plaintiff's notice dated 6. 4. 1994 and even the fact of having executed the agreement of lease dated 25. 12. 1991. The defendant also denied the rate of Rent to be Rs. 25,000. 00 per month but claimed that the premises had been let out at a rental of Rs. 6,250. 00 p. m. The defendant took up a false plea that agreement of lease was forged and fabricated and his signatures thereupon were also forged. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs have claimed a decree for defendant's ejectment along with a decree for Rs. 5,75,000. 00 towards arrears of rent/damages from 20th June 1992 to 19th May, 1994 and damages for use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 2,000. 00 per day from 20. 5. 1994 till date of actual delivery of possession.
(3) DEFENDANT is vehemently contesting the suit. According to the defendant, he was looking for a property to buy in South Delhi but when he learnt that the plaintiffs were proposing to let out a house, a meeting took place in which the plaintiffs revealed that they were in fact anxious to sell the property and only as an interim measure had thought for renting it out, since it was neither possible for them to take care of the vacant property nor leave it uncared. After negotiations, the plaintiffs settled the sale for Rs. 30,00,000. 00. Since time was needed for the plaintiffs to obtain permission for sale and for the defendant to arrange for money, it was agreed that sale of flat would be completed by 31. 3. 1995 and in the meanwhile, possession of the flat would be given to the defendant as a tenant on a yearly rental of Rs. 75,000/ payable in advance which was even prevailing rate of rent for such similarly situated premises in the locality. Rent paid by the defendant till time of sale was also agreed to be adjusted at the time of actual sale but treating it as an advance money. It was for these reasons that defendant paid Rs. 75,000. 00 twice after initial payment of Rs. 75,000. 00, thus, making a total payment of Rs. 2,25,000. 00. The plaintiffs got certain stamp/plain papers signed from the defendant which the defendant signed in good faith and also to enable the plaintiffs to complete the formalities. One of the plain papers was for the agreement to let on monthly rent of Rs. 6,250. 00. The defendant never doubted the intention and motive of the plaintiffs. On receipt of the legal notice from the plaintiffs, the defendant was shocked and realised the reason why the plaintiffs never issued rent receipts. The defendant also reported the matter to the S. H. O. concerned on 16th May, 1994. In this background, the defendant has stated that the premises were let out to him on a rent of Rs. 6,250. 00 p. m. A cheque for Rs. 75,000. 00 as an advance for one year upto 19. 12. 1992 was handed over to the plaintiffs and thereafter another cheque for Rs. 75,000. 00 towards rent till 19. 12. 1993 was handed over. Lastly the defendant sent a cheque for Rs. 75,000. 00 as rent upto 19. 12. 1994. Thus, rent stood paid till 19. 12. 1994. Had rent been Rs. 25,000. 00 per month, as alleged by the plaintiffs, there was no reason why the plaintiffs would have kept silent after three months of the first payment of Rs. 75,000. 00, which rent according to the plaintiffs was only for a period of three months. Because of the rise in prices of the properties, the plaintiffs became dishonest and, thus, wanted to wriggle out of the agreement to sell and that they had come out with a false case by forging the blank stamp papers on which signatures of the defendant were obtained.
(4) THE defendant has also contested the application moved by the plainiffs for temporary injunction and calling upon the defendant to make payment at the rate of Rs. 25,000. 00 per month. It is not disputed that the third cheque of Rs. 75,000. 00 has not been got encashed by the plaintiffs and, thus, two payments have been received by the plaintiffs so far, namely, Rs. 75,000. 00 on 20. 12. 1991 by means of cheque and another sum of Rs. 75,000. 00 by means of cheque dated 5. 5. 1993. According to the plaintiffs, these two payments are towards rent upto 19. 6. 1992 at the rate of Rs. 25,000. 00 p. m. whereas according to the defendant, these were towards payment of rent upto 19. 12. 1993 at the rate of Rs. 6,250. 00 p. m. Thus, according to the defendant, rent is payable w. e. f. 20. 12. 1993 at the rate of Rs. 6,250. 00 which he is ready and willing to deposit. According to the plaintiffs, rent is due from 20. 6. 1992 at the rate of Rs. 25,000. 00 per month for which the defendant must be called upon to deposit.
(5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the parties have also taken me through the documents placed on record.
(6) ADMISSION/denial of documents was carried out by the parties as per the rules on 6. 3. 1995 in pursuance to an order passed on 25. 1. 1995. On 7. 3. 1995 the defendant appeared in court for his statement under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was recorded. Though the defendant at the time of admission and denial had denied his signatures on the agreement to let and for that reason also on the notarised carbon copy of the agreement to let, but during the course of his statement under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code, the defendant admitted his signatures on the notarised carbon copy of agreement to let as also on the original agreement to let, which was produced in court at the time of recording of defendant's statement under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The defendant also admitted photo copies of two cheques, Exts. P-1 and P-2 dated 20. 12. 1991 and 5. 5. 1993. The defen idant also admitted the receipt of notice Ext. P-5 dated 6. 4. 1994, a letter of request, Ext. P-3, dated 18. 4. 1994 sent by his counsel to the plaintiffs for supply of an attested true copy of the agreement to let dated 25. 12. 1991. He also admitted the receipt of covering letter dated 4. 5. 1994 along with photocopy of the agreement to let which was sent by the plaintiffs' counsel to his counsel and the reply dated 16. 5. 1994, Ext. P-4, sent on his behalf to the plaintiffs' counsel in response to the notice terminating tenancy. The defendant, during the course of statement also admitted having received the letters sent by the plaintiffs dated 14. 5. 19, 28. 8. 1993, 14. 9. 1993, 12. 11. 1993, 6. 12. 1993 and 13. 11. 1993 and his own complaint made to S. H. O. Police Station Hauz Khas on 16. 5. 1994.
(7) CONSIDERING the submissions made by the counsel forthe parties in the light of the admitted documents, the question to be decided is as to whether and what relief, if any, can be granted to the plaintiffs. As noticed above, the defendant is ready and willing to pay and/or deposit the arrears of rent/use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 6,250. 00 p. m. from 20. 12. 1993 till date. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the defendant deserves, during pendency of the suit, to be directed to deposit use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 25,000. 00 p. m. from 20. 6. 1992 till date and to continue to deposit the same month by month at the rate of Rs. 25,000. 00.
(8) THE question has to be decided on the prima facie evidence and the same will be subject to the final decision on merits. The stand of the defendant is that the rent of similar accommodation in the locality at the given time, when he was inducted as a tenant was between Rs. 6,000. 00 to Rs. 6,500. 00 p. m. and, thus, it is highly unbelievable that he would have agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 25,000. 00 for which reliance has been placed by the defendant on some correspondence between Gas Authority of India Ltd. with one of its employees pertaining to one flat/house No. R-550, Asian Games Village. As per this document the rent being charged by Gaas Authority India from its employee for a flat in the vicinity from 10. 1. 1991 to 30. 12. 1991 was @rs. 720. 00 p. m. ; from 1. 1. 1992 to 3. 7. 1992 it was Rs. 737. 50 p. m. and thereafter it was at the rate of Rs. 10,624. 50 p. m. To counter this version of the defendant, reliance has been placed by the plaintiffs on proceedings under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act between the plaintiffs and their erstwhile tenant for the property in question, which is now in occupation of the defendant. For the period from 10. 8. 1988 till July 1990 the premises were let out to a tenant on a rental of Rs. 11,000. 00 p. m. , excluding water and electricity charges. The property of plaintiffs let out to the defendant is not same and similar to the flat of Gas Authority of India on which reliance has been placed by the defendant and moreover, rent being charge by an employer from its employee cannot be a criteria in ascertaining the rent in the vicinity. Prima facie the document relied upon by the defendant cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the disputed property which is in occupation of the defendant had itself been let out from 1988 to 1990 at the rate of Rs. 11,000. 00 p. m. in pursuance to proceedings under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
(9) THERE are various other circumstances due to which prima facie, subject to the ultimate result of suit when the same is taken to trial, defence of the defendant does not appear to be plausible. He has admitted his signatures on the original agreement to let as also on the notarised copy of the agreement to let. His defence is that signatures on blank stamp papers and on plain papers were obtained, which were later on converted by the plaintiffs in an agreement to let. This defence is raised by the defendant for the first time in his written statement filed in this court on 23. 1. 1995. In notice dated 6. 4. 1994, receipt of which is not disputed by the defendant, it was claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that as per terms of the lease agreement dated 25. 11. 1991 executed between the parties, the defendant was permitted to use the property for a period of 11 months w. e. f. 20. 12. 1991 at a monthly rent of Rs. 25,000. 00. On defendant's request, photo copy of this agreement was supplied and after receipt thereof, reply was sent by the defendant through his counsel. In reply, Ext. P-4 dated 16. 5. 1994, plea was not taken by the defendant that signatures on blank stamp papers or blank papers were obtained. The plea taken by him was that his alleged signatures are fictitious. In other words, the plea was not that the signatures are that of defendant on the agreement to let but it was that the signatures were fictitious. Even in defendant's complaint to the police, copy of which has been filed by the defendant himself, he alleged that the agreement to sell, photo copy of which has been received by him, is forged and fabricated document which was never executed between the parties and that the alleged signatures are fictitious. Thus, at the first available opportunity, defendant did not come out with the plea that though signatures are his but the same were obtained on blank papers. The defendant has not placed reliance on any other document in support of his version that the rent was fixed at Rs. 6,250. 00 and it is highly unbelievable that the plaintiffs in 1991 would ever agree to let out premises at Rs. 6,250. 00 p. m. when the same had been let out prior in point of time to a tenant at the rent of Rs. 11,000. 00 p. m.
(10) THERE is another circumstance due to which, prima facie defendant's version cannot be accepted, namely, the payment by the plaintiff of brokerage. It is not disputed that possession was handed over to the defendant on 20. 12. 1991. According to the plaintiffs, the agreement to let was executed on 25. 12. 1991. The receipt of brokerage is dated 26. 12. 1991. The brokerage is Rs. 12,500. 00 namely, 1/2 month's rent. Had the rent been Rs. 6,250. 00 p. m. , brokerage would have been Rs. 3,125. 00 only and not Rs. 12,500. 00. Moreover, the agreement of lease is on a stamp paper of Rs. 3,000. 00, which is an amount of stamp required for executing a rent note with monthly rent of Rs. 25,000. 00. Had the lease been a lease reserving monthly rent of Rs. 6,250. 00 , the amount of stamp duty payable would be Rs. 750. 00 and not Rs. 3,000. 00. These are certain circumstances, which lead to the drawing up of a prima facie inference that the amount which the defendant can be called upon at this stage to pay, during pendency of the litigation, for continuing in occupation would be Rs. 25,000. 00 and not Rs. 6,250. 00 p. m. The plaintiffs for the duration of suit have claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000. 00 per day. In other words, damage is claimed at the rate of Rs. 60,000. 00 p. m. In the application, the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief as regards arrears of rent upto the date of filing of suit, for which decree has been claimed in the suit. They have claimed directions against the defendant for payment of future use and occupation charges. There cannot be any objection in defendant restraining from parting with possession of the premises and in favour of any third person since no objection has been raised on behalf of the defendant for such type of relief being granted to the plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that tenancy stands terminated and the liability is to pay use and occupation charges. In case the defendant was to contest the suit and to remain in occupation during pendency of suit, he must be asked to pay such use and occupation charges which may be considered reasonable. Jurisdiction in passing such orders by the court is not in dispute.
(11) IN view of the above, the application is allowed. Defendant is restrained from parting with possession of the premises in question to any other person other than the plaintiff and from creating any third party's interest in the suit property. As a condition of the defendant continuing to occupy the premises during pendency of suit he is directed to pay, during pendency of the suit, damages for use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 25,000. 00 p. m. from the date of the institution of suit till further orders. Since suit was instituted on 24. 5. 1994, defendant will pay the arrears of use and occupation charges from 1. 6. 1994 till 31. 3. 1995 within a period of one month and will continue to pay/deposit use and occupation charges month by month by 10th day of each succeeding month. Failure to deposit use and occupation charges will preclude the defendant to contest the suit. Needless to add that observations made while deciding this application will be without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties and will not have any effect on the merits of the case. The amount to be paid by the defendant in pursuance to the order will be also subject to the final result of the litigation.