Delhi District Court
Brig. (Retd) Sukjit Singh vs M/S Gulmohar Exports Pvt. Ltd on 15 April, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR ARYA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : NEW DELHI (02)
PATIALA HOUSE : NEW DELHI
Suit No. 38/09
Date of Institution : 13.01.2009
Date of arguments : 01.04.2010
Date of order : 15.04.2010
Brig. (Retd) Sukjit Singh, MVC
R/o The Villa, Kapurthala - 144601
Punjab.
through his Power Attorney
Mr. Vijit Pal Singh
S/o Mr. Pritpal Singh
R/o 7/18, Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi110 019 ....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Gulmohar Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office at
101, Surya Kiran Building,
19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001
through its Director/Principal Officer ....Defendant
ORDER :
This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this application are as under.
2. The plaintiff filed this suit claiming to be owner/ landlord of property bearing no. 101, First Floor, admeasuring Suit No. 38/09 Page No. 1/8 2 approximately 740 sq. ft. of the main hall and 230 sq. ft. of the mezzanine floor, one toilet and car parking space no. S7, in the upper basement, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). The plaintiff vide lease deed dated 01.04.1998 let out the suit property to the defendant at a monthly rental of Rs. 9000/ per month excluding of water, electricity and maintenance charges commencing w.e. f. 01.04.1998 for an initial period of 3 years after which the rent was to be increased @ 10% for a further period of 3 years. As per the lease deed, the rent was increased from time to time and lastly the rent was revised on 01.04.2004 and the defendant lastly paid rent @ Rs. 11,800/ per month to the plaintiff till Feb., 2008.
It is stated that the defendant did not revise the rate of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2007 as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed and since 01.03.2008, the defendant has neither paid rent nor tendered arrears of rent to the plaintiff and as such become a willful defaulter.
The plaintiff vide legal notice dt. 01.09.2008 was constrained to terminate the tenancy of the defendant and he was asked to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice or on the morning of 01.10.2008. In the notice it was also stated that in case the defendant failed to give possession of the Suit No. 38/09 Page No. 2/8 3 suit property, the defendant will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,91,000/ per month as damages for unauthorized use and occupation charges for the suit property. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant, who instead of vacating and handing over the possession of the suit property to the Attorney of the plaintiff, sent a reply dated 29.09.2008 on false / frivolous grounds and refused to vacate the suit property. It is further stated that the defendant is also liable to pay arrear of rent at last paid rate i.e. Rs. 11,800/ per month w.e.f. 01.03.2008 to 30.09.2008 amounting to Rs. 82,600/ which the defendant has failed to pay inspite of repeated requests and demands. The defendant is also liable to pay use and occupation charges @ Rs. 2,91,000/ w.ef. 01.10.2008 till 30.11.2008 amounting to Rs. 5,82,000/ which it has failed to pay inspite of receipt of notice. The defendant is further liable to pay damages @ 2,91,000/ per month till the possession is handed over to the plaintiff.
Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for a decree in his favour and against the defendant for possession of the suit property, for a decree against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 82,600/ being arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.03.2008 to 30.09.2008 @ Rs. 11,800/ p.m. alongwith the interest @ 15% p. a. till the payment by the defendant and for a decree against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,82,000/ being damages Suit No. 38/09 Page No. 3/8 4 @ Rs. 2,91,000/ p.m. w.e.f 01.10.2008 to 30.11.2008 and till date.
3. Per contra, the defendant in his written statement has averred that suit is not maintainable as it did not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiff has no reason to terminate the tenancy of the defendant without any reasonable cause and excuse whereas the lease deed had automatically revised. The defendant is continuing to pay the increased rent from time to time. The suit is not properly valued and the plaintiff is neither entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property nor any decree of Rs. 82,600/ or of Rs. 5,82,000/ or cost.
4. The defendant has not filed any formal reply to the present application, but argued on the same on 05.10.2009 and 30.01.2010. After that counsel for defendant did not turn up for arguments on 15.03.2010 and 01.04.2010. The arguments were concluded by the counsel for plaintiff on 01.04.2010.
5. I have gone through the pleadings of parties and documents placed on the record. As per the averments made by the parties, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed in this case. The rate of rent is also not disputed. The defendant only emphasized on the fact that the lease deed was expired on 31.03.2004 and hence the present suit is time barred. However, Suit No. 38/09 Page No. 4/8 5 on the other hand, it is clear admission of the defendant that it is in possession of the suit property continuously till date. Moreover, the rate of last paid rent is also not disputed.
6. The plaintiff has relied upon some judgments in support of his case. In case titled "Akash Ganga Builders & Engineers (P) Ltd. v. G. P. Seth HUF & Anr, 1999 IV AD (DELHI) 371" it is held as under :
"Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Ord.XII, rule 6 - Judgment on admissions - Suit for possession and mesne profits - Premises let out for 3 years by unregistered lease deed - Lease renewed for another period of 3 years - Lease came to end by efflux of time - However, by way of abundant caution, it was terminated by notice also u/s 106 of T. P.A. Termination valid - Decree on admissions sustainable."
He has also relied on the following judgments on the same point :
i. Uptron Powertronics Ltd. v. Shri G. L. Rawal, 1999 IV AD (DELHI) 861, ii. Raj Gopal (HUF) v. State Bank of India, 1999 III AD (DELHI) 14, iii. Inder Kumar Kapur & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 I AD (DELHI) 262.
7. In view of the pleadings and documents filed on record, the plaintiff moved the present application under order XII Rule 6 CPC in which it was contended that the defendant has not Suit No. 38/09 Page No. 5/8 6 denied in his written statement that plaintiff was not the owner/ landlord of the suit property. In the written statement, the defendant has not denied the rate of rent @ Rs. 11,888/ p.m. w.e.f. 01.04.2004. The defendant has not denied himself as a tenant of plaintiff in the property in question. Therefore, this becomes clear that defendant has clearly admitted the plaintiff as the owner/ landlord of the suit property and himself as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. Rs. 11,888/ p.m. w.e.f. 01.04.2004. Even the legal notice dt. 01.09.2008 was served upon the defendant to which defendant also sent a reply to the plaintiff.
8. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that even if no lease deed was executed between the parties after the first lease deed, the tenancy is deemed to be on month to month basis, which can be terminated by 15 days prior notice.
9. In view of the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that three facts are not in dispute i.e. (i) there exists a tenant landlord relationship between the defendant and plaintiff, (ii) the defendant is the tenant in respect of suit premises and (iii) and had agreed to pay the rent of the suit premises @ monthly rent of Rs. 11,800/. A decree can be passed under order XII rule 6 CPC where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise whether orally or in writing. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charanjit Lal Mehra & Suit No. 38/09 Page No. 6/8 7 Ors. v. Smt. Kamal Saroju Mahajan, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2764".
10. As per Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the suit is liable to be decreed only with respect to recovery of possession and in respect of the remaining issues i.e arrears of rent, mesne profit and damages etc., the suit may continue.
11. In view of the discussion, I allow the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Accordingly, a decree of possession in favour of plaintiff and against defendant is passed with a direction to the defendant to immediately evict from the suit property bearing no. 101, First Floor, admeasuring approximately 740 sq. ft. of the main hall and 230 sq. ft. of the mezzanine floor, one toilet and car parking space no. S7, in the upper basement, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001, and hand over its vacant possession to the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared to this effect.
Announced in the open Court
th
on 15 of April, 2010 (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
ADJ : NEW DELHI (02)
Suit No. 38/09 Page No. 7/8