Delhi District Court
Suit No. : 636/12 vs Kiran Puri on 2 September, 2014
1 Suit No. : 636/12 Fudana Prasad Vs Kiran Puri 02.09.2014
.
Present: Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
Plaintiff in person.
None for defendant.
Put up at 12 noon.
(SUMIT DASS) SCJ-cum-RC (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi/02.09.2014.
12 noon.
Present : As above.
Be awaited.
(SUMIT DASS)
SCJ-cum-RC (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi/02.09.2014.
2-15 p.m.
Present : As above.
(SUMIT DASS)
SCJ-cum-RC (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi/02.09.2014.
Matter was posted for consideration on the aspect as to whether a decree u/o XII rule 6 CPC can be passed against the defendant in respect of the relief of possession on the basis of the admissions made in the pleadings/ on the material available on record.
2Ld. counsel for plaintiff further submits that matter is being delayed by the defendant deliberately with a view to frustrate the plaintiff not to seek vindication of his legal right/yield to the illegal demands of the defendant. Defendant is not paying the rent since the last more than 16 months. An application seeking striking of defence has already been moved which has not yet been disposed off and the defendant is able to protract the litigation on one pretext or the other.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff submits that the necessary ingredients for passing a decree of possession u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC are squarely made out in the given set of facts and circumstances.
None has turned up on behalf of defendant to address arguments despite repeated calls.
I proceed to pass appropriate orders. In short relevant facts are as under:
Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property/tenanted property bearing No. C-3/103, 3rd floor, Sector- 5, Rohini, Delhi-85 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the plaint. The said property was given on rent to the defendant vide rent agreement dt. 16.06.2010 and monthly rent was Rs.4500/- per month and in this reference there was a tenant verification/information form duly filled up dt. 25.06.2010 and submitted to the concerned authorities.
Subsequently, another rent agreement/subsequent rent 3 agreement was executed on 27.07.2011. The tenancy expired by efflux of time on 07.04.2012. Plaintiff had also by abundant caution served a notice dt. 06.07.2012 u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act seeking possession of the suit property. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant and in response whereof the defendant made threatening calls to the plaintiff and further threatened to implicate him in false cases.
In response, the defendant had filed written statement contending that she had taken the premises for a period of five years though initially the rent agreement was only for 11 months. The defendant never misused the terms and conditions upon which the suit premises was let out. Rest of the plaint averments were denied in toto. It was specifically denied that any legal notice was served upon her. However, in reference to the earlier rent agreements executed, the same were not denied.
In a suit for ejectment three aspects which has to be proved on record/apparently decipherable for passing a decree straightaway are as under:-
i. The relationship of landlord and tenant inter se. ii. The suit property is not covered under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 either on account of non-operation of the said Act on account of inapplicability over the area i.e. DRC Act is not notified or most commonly i.e. rent being more than Rs.3500/- per month.4
iii. The tenancy has been validly terminated by way of a legal notice u/s 106 T.P. Act; by efflux of time or by filing a suit for possession/ejectment whereby the intent of the landlord becomes clear i.e. to seek back the possession of the suit premises whereby the summons of the suit can be treated as a legal notice to quit.
Now in response to point No. 1 and 2 , there is no dispute whatsoever. Landlord, tenant relationship is admitted and the rate of rent is also beyond the pale of dispute. This admission is also manifested in the order dt. 28.05.2013 passed by my Ld. Predecessor whereupon order u/o 39 Rule 10 CPC was passed. I may also add herein that the tenancy had expired by efflux of time and even otherwise a legal notice to quit u/s 106 of the Transfer Property Act, dt. 06.07.2014 was served upon the defendant in as much as the plaintiff had also placed on record the Internet generated report of the service of the notice which shows that the delivery of the legal notice was duly attempted. Same manifest that the defendant can be imputed the knowledge about the same.
Dehors the same I may add herein that this aspect is more or less a topic of academic discussion in as much as the filing of the suit for ejectment by itself can be construed as a legal notice to quit u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act - Jeevan Diesel VS Jasbir Singh Chadha 185 (2011) DLT 402 wherein categorically it has been held that filing of a suit for possession by itself is a 5 notice of the intent of the plaintiff to seek the possession of the premises and the summons of the suit can be considered as a legal notice u/s 106 of the T.P. Act -. Suffice here to state that the technical niceties of Law have yielded to substantial justice to make the relationship of landlord and tenant meaningful in the sense that after the contract ends(of tenancy) the plaintiff/landlord is entitled to possession of the premises straightaway.
The only point for consideration/which remains is the contention of the defendant that the tenancy was for a period of five years. Now to my mind, in absence of any registered agreement, there cannot be any tenancy for more than a year/the cognizance whereof which can be taken by the Court. Further in the teeth of two rent agreements i.e. documentary evidence, such a contention of there being any oral agreement of a tenancy for five years is outrightly excluded/palpably a preposterous plea.
Delving further even for availing the defence u/s 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act to retain possession, the agreement should be a registered one. Same is not the case here. Defendant is at liberty to file an appropriate suit to seek enforcement of any oral agreement/understanding but she cannot refuse to vacate the suit property/she cannot be allowed to retain the possession. Thus, the ingredients of passing a decree of ejectment/possession are existing and accordingly, decree of ejectment in respect of the suit property as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed is passed. No order however, as to cost.6
The suit is now listed for P.E. on 24.12.2014.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff submits at bar that he won't insist for mesne profits etc. if possession is delivered to him by the defendant/received in execution of this decree. This submission is noted.
(SUMIT DASS) SCJ-cum-RC (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi/02.09.2014.