After garnering acclaim and applause for his performance as Sanjay Dutt in Rajkumar Hirani's Sanju, now Ranbir Kapoor makes news for the wrong reasons. Ranbir, who own a plush apartment is Kalyani Nagar, Pune's Trump Towers has been sued by his tenant  - Sheetal Suryawanshi - for allegedly not complying with terms of their rental agreement.

Sheetal Suryawanshi of Koregaon Park had moved into the 6,094 square-feet apartment of the actor’s on leave and license basis in October 2016. She has now moved to the court seeking damages and interest for being evicted much before the lock-in period. The license fee was Rs 4 lakh per month for the first 12 months and Rs 4.20 lakhs for the next 12 months. A deposit of Rs 24 lakhs was also paid.

RECOMMENDED READ: SANJU: BHOPU BAJ RAHA HAIN SONG FT. RANBIR, VICKY AND KARISHMA IS A FOOT-TAPPING NUMBER

The case has been registered in the Pune civil court. Sheetal, in her application, stated that her family suffered ‘severe inconvenience and hardships’ due to the sudden eviction notice and has sought damages of up to Rs 50.40 lakh and interest of Rs 1.08 lakh stating inconvenience caused. The tenant claimed that she was asked to vacate in August 2017, only 11 months after she had moved into the flat. She eventually moved out by October 2017.

In the new lawsuit that she filed earlier this year, she claimed that the actor asked her to vacate the flat for reasons that he had plans to move into his Pune apartment. However, a statement denied all such allegations. "In said notice (email), it was falsely informed by the defendant (Ranbir) that he wants to shift to the said premises, and for this reason, plaintiff (Suryawanshi) was asked to vacate the premises in contravention of the terms and conditions of the leave and license agreement,” the suit stated. The suit that was filed in the court informs that she had shot a notice to Ranbir in January 2018, but did not get any response.

Ranbir and his lawyers have denied all such allegations and have filed his responses in court informing the authorities that Suryawanshi was not asked to vacate the flat as he was moving in. They also reproduced a portion of the leave and license agreement. It is stated in the agreement's clause that the lock-in period would be of 12 months and the licensee cannot terminate it beforehand. The clause also states that if Suryawanshi terminates the agreement before 12 months, she will be liable to pay the remaining rent for the period.

Ranbir’s statement in the court highlights the fact that Suryawanshi cannot unilaterally change, modify or interpret leave and license agreement to suit her convenience. According to Ranbir’s response, it appears as if Suryawanshi left the flat at her own free will and she defaulted on the rent for 3 months before leaving which will be deducted from the deposit. The case’s next hearing is on August 28.