After this, he filed an application seeking discharge from the case. He argued that he had not unduly benefitted or enjoyed unjust enrichment because he stayed at the flat.
He added that he paid maintenance and utility charges amounting to ₹50,000 a month and that he had only used one room in the flat for eight months. He asserted that none of these acts amounted to his receiving any “valuable thing” as mentioned under Section 11 of the PC Act.
The Court was also told that he occupied the flat after he was shown the premises by an Income Tax Officer.
Having heard rival submissions, Justice Dangre eventually discharged Goel from the case while also factoring in that it was unlikely that Goel was even aware of the flat’s ownership and rental requirements.
“Whether the Applicant [Goel] had any knowledge about the requirement of payment of rent is an important question and, since, he was asked to occupy the said flat by the ITO, and was never apprised that he shall bear the rent for the same, it cannot be accepted that he was aware about the rent to be paid and the flat is leased out by the owner to M/s Heera Constructions,” the Court observed.
Source: Barandbench
