Delhi District Court
Mohta Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd vs Delhi Factory Owners' Federation on 13 February, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GIRISH KATHPALIA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI
SUIT NO. 178/06
MOHTA FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT
14B, ATMARAM HOUSE,
1, TOLSTOY MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001. ....PLAINTIFF
versus
DELHI FACTORY OWNERS' FEDERATION,
13-C, ATMA RAM HOUSE,
1, TOLSTOY MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001.
THROUGH ITS
PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT ....DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11/07/06
ARGUMENTS CONCLUDED ON: 29/01/07
DATE OF DECISION: 13/02/07
Counsel for Plaintiff: H.C. Kamra, Advocate
Counsel for defendant: Ms. Chandrani Prasad, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. In this suit for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises and mesne profits/damages plaintiff brought an application dated 06/10/06 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking decree of the suit so far as recovery of possession is concerned on the basis of admissions made by the defendant in written statement. Reply to the application was filed on CS 178/06 Page 1 of 9 pages 2 behalf of defendant, opposing the same. I have heard ld. counsel for both the sides and perused the record.
2. As pleaded by plaintiff, it let out the premises no. 13- C, Atma Ram House, 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi situated at left side of 13th floor of the said building comprising of three cabins, one inside toilet admeasuring 494.5 sq feet (herein after referred to "the suit property") to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.13,848/- excluding electricity and water charges by way of lease agreement dated 16/04/03 for a period of three years expiring on 15/04/06. Vide letter dated 16/04/03, defendant deposited a sum of Rs.83,083/- towards interest free security. As stipulated in the lease deed, defendant was to pay rent in advance, by 16th day of each calender month and in the event of failure to do so, the tenancy was to terminate. It had also been agreed, as per the plaintiff that the defendant would use the suit property for running office of the defendant federation and for no other purpose.
3. As per plaintiff, defendant turned out to be a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and stands in arrears CS 178/06 Page 2 of 9 pages 3 with effect from 16/05/05 which has not been cleared despite notice dated 17/02/06.
4. As per plaintiff, tenancy of the defendant was terminated by way of quit notice dated 17/02/06 but despite service thereof, the defendant has not handed over vacant possession of the suit property.
5. As per plaintiff, lease even otherwise expired by efflux of time on 15/04/06 in terms with conditions of the lease. As such the defendant is liable to vacate.
6. In its written statement, the defendant admitted the relationship of tenancy created between the parties under lease agreement dated 16/04/03 as well as rate of rent and the period of tenancy till 15/04/06. Defendant pleaded that despite various letters, plaintiff did not take any steps to get the electricity bill rectified due to which the defendant suffered loss to the tune of approximately Rs.2,000/- per month. It is for this reason that the defendant stopped paying rent. Defendant in written statement admitted having received the quit notice dated 17/02/06 and challenged the suit on the sole ground of failure on the part of plaintiff to get the inflated CS 178/06 Page 3 of 9 pages 4 electricity bills rectified.
7. Plaintiff filed a detailed replication, denying the defendant's pleadings and reiterated plaint contents.
8. The application under consideration has been brought by the plaintiff in view of clear admissions made by the defendant in the written statement as regards relationship of tenancy, rate of rent beyond protection of rent control law, service of notice terminating the lease and expiry of lease by efflux of time.
9. In reply to the application under consideration, the defendant admitted the above said facts and pleaded that the defendant stopped paying rent in view of default on the part of plaintiff to get the inflated electricity bills rectified.
10. During the course of arguments on the application under consideration, ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the rate of rent agreed between the parties was excluding the electricity charges and the said charges had to be paid by the defendant directly to the electricity authorities. Plaintiff was under no duty to get any electricity bill rectified, even if the same was exaggerated. So far as the security deposit is CS 178/06 Page 4 of 9 pages 5 concerned, it was argued that the same is refundable to the defendant at the time of vacation of the suit property and even otherwise, suit of plaintiff for arrears of rent and mesne profits is pending and the amount claimed is much more than the security deposit.
11. Ld. Counsel for defendant simply reiterated the contents of written statement and argued that defendant is not liable to vacate the suit property despite service of quit notice since plaintiff did not get the electricity bills rectified.
12. It would be pertinent to record that neither side filed the original lease agreement dated 16/04/03. Counsel for plaintiff stated that the lease agreement is not in possession of the plaintiff. On 29/01/07 counsel for defendant undertook to file within one week the original lease agreement or a copy thereof but the same has not been done.
13. However, the suit can be proceeded further even in the absence of the said lease agreement. For, defendant has categorically admitted that the lease agreement dated 16/04/03 had been executed between the parties; there is no dispute as regards identity of the suit property, rate of rent CS 178/06 Page 5 of 9 pages 6 and period of lease till 15/04/06.
14. In the case of SATYA NARAYAN SPUN PIPE FACTORY vs N. PADMAWATI, 2003 (3) RCR (CIVIL) 388 Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DATTO PANT vs VITHAL RAO, AIR 1975 SC 1111 held that when tenancy is determined with efflux of time, no quit notice is necessary. Same was held by Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of A. RAJESWARI vs BRUNDABAN MOHAPATRA, 2003(2) RCR (CIVIL)14. A division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of BHARTIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs RAJIV SALUJA, 112(2004)DLT 82 DB upheld the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge whereby the suit had been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in view of admission of facts in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant, termination of tenancy by efflux of time or in any case by means of quit notice duly served upon the defendants.
15. In the case of NATIONAL RADIO AND ELECTRONIC COMPANY LIMITED vs MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION, 122 (2005) DLT 629 DB a division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High CS 178/06 Page 6 of 9 pages 7 Court upheld the decree passed by the trial court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in view of admission of relationship of tenancy, rate of rent and service of quit notice by the defendant. In the case of VED PRAKASH vs MARUDHAR SERVICES, 2000 RAJDHANI LAW REPORTER 423 Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that admissions must be drawn from totality of defence in the written statement. If there is evasive defence, it is impermissible to allow evidence on it. Where the tenant raises hollow pleas of waiver, he cannot oppose the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. To refuse decree, in the words of Hon'ble High Court, would be emasculation of judicial power to do justice.
16. In the case of DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED vs. SUNIL PURI, 90 (2001) DLT 769 DB the trial court of ld. Additional District Judge decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on admitted facts that tenancy came to an end by efflux of time and rent of the premises was more than Rs.3500/- per month. Hon'ble High Court observed that the period fixed in lease deed stood expired on 31-08-1997 and the terms of lease provided for an extension of two years at the option of lessee to have the CS 178/06 Page 7 of 9 pages 8 lease renewed. That period also expired on 31-08-1999. Hon'ble High Court held that plea of alleged oral understanding being not tenable in the eyes of law, there was no illegality in the judgment of ld. trial court to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession.
17. Falling back to present case, defendant admits the relationship of tenancy created between the parties under lease agreement dated 16/04/03; rate of rent more than Rs.3,500/- per month; termination of tenancy by service of quit notice dated 17/02/06; and expiry of lease by efflux of time on 15/04/06. The only defence to the application under consideration is the failure on the part of plaintiff to get the electricity bills rectified. That, at the most would entail only financial implications which can be taken care of at the time of quantification of the arrears of rent and mesne profits. So far as the relief for possession of the suit property is concerned, there is no defence to the application in view of unambiguous admissions of the defendant in the written statement.
18. In similar situations in the case of N.C. JAIN vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, 77(1999) DLT108 and CS 178/06 Page 8 of 9 pages 9 AMARCHAND TALWAR vs EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, 77(1999) DLT 809 and DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for possession of the suit property and directed enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC to determine the rate and quantum of mesne profits.
19. In view of above discussion, application dated 06/10/06 of plaintiff under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC succeeds and the suit is decreed against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit property being premises no. 13-C, Atma Ram House, 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi situated at left side of 13th floor of the said building comprising of three cabins, one inside toilet admeasuring 494.5 sq feet.
20. So far as arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits are concerned, the inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC be held to quantify the same.
21. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn up.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13th February 2007 (GIRISH KATHPALIA) ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE DELHI CS 178/06 Page 9 of 9 pages